Global Warming?

Is the reality the real threat, or is it the theory that's the threat?

This is a post that might be expanded and edited; for now I just want to get it out there.

My take is that a lot of people who understand the medical malpractice associated with Covid-19 still don’t understand, or accept, the scientific malpractice that’s gone into global warming science, so here are resources and reasonings that might help people to understand that CO2 catastrophic warming isn’t a real problem, but that the theory itself is a huge problem.

We’re hearing a lot about how the WEF and Davos Man are attempting to control the world through means such as the vaccine passport scheme during Covid-19. I agree with the general idea that the WEF and the Great Reset are attempting to establish a system of monitor/control over the entire world population. The central idea of these folks is that we have to be managed and monitored for the greater good, and that greater good includes preventing the planet from burning up.

There is no catastrophic CO2 warming; this is pseudoscience. But it seems to me that a lot of people still believe it’s real science, even if the events of the past two years have raised alarms over the state of medical science. That is, although they understand the debasement of medical science during Covid-19, they don’t believe that climate science has also been debased.

Why is this important? Because Klaus Schwab and his Great Reset are explicitly premised on the need for the Great Reset in order to save the planet. So my over-arching argument is that if we don’t understand what the theory of global warming is, then we can kiss our attempt to stop the Great Reset goodbye: a few years of “certain” catastrophic pronouncements, perhaps coupled with new pathogens arising because of global warming (so we’ll be told, even if these pathogens come from a lab) and we can forget about resistance: everyone will be persuaded, once again, of the need to stay safe. We’ll submit to being monitored and managed.

Another elephant in the room not addressed much at the time is the problem of the bioweapons labs (“biolabs.”) We need only consider how advanced these will be twenty years hence to see how dangerous these labs could be. But for now, my arguments are focused on showing that climate science is very poor science, and in fact it’s pseudoscience. The fact that it really is pseudoscience leads me to believe that it just might be part of the strategy to herd humanity into a Reset.

First, a graph:

Christy Graph

I’m unable right now to find exactly where this graph came from, but it was generated by Dr. John Christy and I’ll do my best to summarize what it means without having the explanation in front of me (it’s been a while since I looked at this and an important link to its source is dead.) On the left you’ll see that scale for hPa, hectopascals, which are measurements of pressure. The earth’s surface is at 1000 hPa, on the bottom; the top of our atmosphere (our atmosphere where the weather happens— the troposphere) is at 100 hPa. On the top of the graph we see that it’s for the area of 20 degrees N and S of the equator, which is known as the tropical troposphere. We see that this is for the years 1979-2012. On the bottom, we see warming per decade. The circles represent satellite and balloon datasets, so these are actual measurements of the troposphere; the various wavy lines are model predictions. Of note are the readings at about 300 hPa, about 4/5 up the graph: this is where the projected tropical tropospheric hot spot is supposed to be. What’s the hot spot? That’s what the models predict if we take all the characteristic of CO2 back-radiation in our atmosphere and plug them in: what we find is that the models spit out a tropical tropospheric hot spot at about 300 hPa. So the science says: CO2 is warming the earth. The models say: yes it is, and here’s what it’ll look like. The data says: no, it ain’t happening.

So, this is a beginning, but there are lots and lots of funny things like the above graph. To be clear: yes, CO2 back-radiates and causes warming. [Edit: I no longer believe that CO2 back radiation does anything at all. Yes, CO2 radiates infrared. But a colder atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface, and evidence from skew-T diagrams of balloon data demonstrates that atmospheric pressure dictates cooling according to the Ideal Gas Law, despite even the radiative effects of water vapor. There’s no sign at all in real-world data, shown in thousands of skew-T diagrams , that atmospheric cooling is inhibited by CO2.] But to believe that CO2 will burn up the planet is magical thinking. And yes, the climate has been changing but it’s been changing for centuries, and ice cores from Greenland tell us that sometimes those changes are quite rapid. But so far, nothing unusual is happening, despite what the media— and climate scientist whose salaries depend on them defending the orthodoxy— tell us (wait: are these scientists “paid off”?)

Here are more references. These are things I’ve read and found for myself and I believe they’re a good summary of the real state of climate science.

First, a testimony by John Christy before the US House of Representatives, 2017. Note especially figure 4 (above) which is how the IPCC conveyed to the public what Christy’s graph shows: the IPCC graphs are virtually unreadable, and are buried in Supplemental Material. Stuff like this happens all the time, and this is certainly a form of censorship.

Another testimony, 2016, by Christy, and these testimonies are important because they give a summary of real data telling the real story.

I recommend Steve Koonin’s recent book, Unsettled. This is a great review of the state of the science.

---

I’ve been particularly interested in reef science because it’s science that anyone can grasp without advanced physics. The idea that CO2 is doing much of anything at all to our oceans is fairly far-fetched, and we can see this most easily in reef science.

First, an excellent background on the science of reefs (even though it assumes that CO2 catastrophic warming is real) is in Coral Reefs in the Microbial Seas.

In particular I’ve been interested in the Great Barrier Reef. What started me on this reef journey was an essay by Jim Steele regarding a paper by Hughes, et al, wherein Steele takes Hughes to task for ignoring the mechanics of an El Nino in the western Pacific; namely, that among other things El Ninos lower sea level in the western Pacific.

The Hughes paper, “Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals,” has 46 co-authors. That’s quite a consensus for one paper! But as Steele notes, among those 46 authors no one seems to have acknowledged the 2015-2016 El Nino and the well-documented effect El Ninos have of lowering sea levels in the western Pacific. Many reefs in the GBR system are shallow, and as documented by Ampou in 2017, shallow reefs are impacted by lower sea levels: the title of his paper is “Coral mortality induced by the 2015–2016 El-Niño in Indonesia: the effect of rapid sea level fall.” The basic effect of El Ninos on shallow reefs is this: lower sea levels coupled with clear skies heat up the shallower waters, and the reefs themselves are more exposed to the effects of solar insolation since they’re so much closer to the surface. When the water temperature change and stress from insolation are extensive, then the reefs expel their symbiotic zooxanthellae, thus bleaching. But, various zooxanthellae circulate in the oceans and the reefs somehow pick and choose new zooxanthellae to sustain them. Here’s what NOAA says about bleaching:

Warmer water temperatures [or any stress, including colder temperatures] can result in coral bleaching. When water is too warm, corals will expel the algae (zooxanthellae) living in their tissues causing the coral to turn completely white. This is called coral bleaching. When a coral bleaches, it is not dead. Corals can survive a bleaching event, but they are under more stress and are subject to mortality.

So what really happening during the bleaching event of 2015-16 at the GBR? What really happened is that lowered sea level from El Nino allowed shallower waters to warm more quickly, made exposure to the sun more direct, and changed circulation patterns so that warmer equatorial water spilled into the GBR.

In addition to Steele’s references, I have some of my own that buttress his argument:

During the 2015-2016 El Nino that affected the GBR, mangroves in the Gulf of Carpentaria were dying of thirst. We care about this because the Gulf of Carpentaria is off northern Australia and is connected to part of the Pacific known as the Coral Sea through the Torres Strait, and typically water flows from the Pacific into the Gulf. But due to lower sea level in the Pacific, that flow was reversed, and warm water from the more equatorial Gulf of Carpentaria flowed into the waters of the northern GBR. Thus, the water level in the Gulf lowered and the mangroves started dying of thirst. We can see the effects on the GBR in images in the Hughes paper: most of the 2015-16 bleaching occurred in the northern GBR closest to the Gulf of Carpentaria.

See also here, where scientists acknowledge that a “perfect storm” of circumstances centered around an El Nino and ocean currents, and not CO2, led to the 2015-16 GBR bleaching. This is the 2017 study by Wolanski that documents current flows leading to water spilling from the Gulf of Carpentaria into the GBR.

Yet remember: we’re told that CO2 did it, and that the GBR is dying. Except, it isn’t. Watch this (a summary of where the GBR reef is as of March, 2017, begins at about the six-minute mark.) The GBR actually had a wonderful spawning event after the 2016 bleaching.

So what’s really killing reefs? Overfishing, for the most part. When Leonardo DiCaprio announced during a documentary that the dead reefs we see are due to CO2, we should perhaps remember that he’s an actor and not a scientist. For example, see here, wherein we hear that parrotfish, which eat the turf algae that might otherwise smother reefs, are key to survival of Caribbean reefs. And see here, wherein Cinner et. al. analyze the factors that make for healthy reefs versus dying reefs, worldwide. It’s not CO2 and it’s not ocean warming; it’s primarily over-fishing that destroys reefs. (Behind a paywall, but I have pdfs of this and other papers I’ve referenced. I might have gotten them through this portal or I might have bought them.)

Last but not least is Peter Ridd’s book on the GBR which debunks a lot of the supposed science on the GBR as well as exposing some of the pseudoscience around the ocean acidification story. (Peter Ridd was fired from James Cook University for being “uncollegial”: he argued against the consensus view on the GBR.) Another series of scientific essays that throw some cold water on “CO2 is causing ocean acidification” is here, from the Journal of Marine Science.

The whole “CO2 is heating up the oceans” meme is a misguided attempt to prove that CO2 catastrophic warming is real, and it exhibits a typical trick that alarmist scientists often use: they confuse causation, probably deliberately. For example, it really is true that reefs are in trouble (but not all reefs everywhere; see the Cinner paper noted above.) But the cause of reef decline is mainly overfishing, and the mechanism for overfishing leading to reef decline is explained in the book, “Coral Reefs in the Microbial Seas.” We should note, too, that the oceans have been heating up very slightly ever since about 1900, and since this heating began prior to 1950— the acknowledged beginning of any effects CO2 emissions might be having— then some other mechanism aside from CO2 must be in play.

The above is a window into the very poor quality of climate science. This isn’t an anomaly: bad climate science, even deliberately deceptive science and data, is all over the place. Steve Koonin’s book is a great resource to understand how bad things are. It seems to me that many, many scientists are funded to toe the climate line or else lose their funding, their prestige, and maybe even their jobs. Climate deniers— make that, “skeptics”— aren’t very welcome in academia. Yet they’re out there, proving that everything about catastrophic warming really is up for debate, and is being debated.

At the very least, we should understand what the critics of the CO2 catastrophic warming theory say. Websites such as WUWT and Climate, Etc. are excellent sources to get a feel for what thinking people— many of them scientists— have to say about the so-called consensus (often these sites present detailed, in-the-weeds science.)

All of this is important: catastrophic warming will be the next bludgeon used to subdue humanity into entering a new world wherein we all collectively pull together for the greater good, and wherein individual rights and freedoms will be given up “out of necessity.” We need to pay attention.