Stock here, the commentary in red is my work, the rest is not but is a good base to work from, and I
don't agree with all of it, calling out 2
1) They are claiming sea level rise is the primary risk
2) They claim an 85 year lag between the solar magnetic cycle and temperature trends. I think it to be 10 years or less.
My notes are added in red, I think you will find them interesting.
Dr Roger Higgs, Geoclastica Ltd, Technical Note 2019-11, 6th April 2019, amended 7th March 2020 on ResearchGate (LINK HERE).
We urgently need to expose the 'CO2 = pollutant' fallacy being forced
upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by schools,
universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and to
denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the
public, including those youngsters themselves.
Here are the 29 bullet points proving CO2's innocence:
1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) has no geologists among the hundreds of authors of its
last major report (2013-14) and at most 1 geologist in the next report
(due 2022; see my Technical Note 2019-10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the
last 150 years (since thermometer records began, ~1850), yet Earth is
30 million (sic) times older, 4.5 billion years! Geologists know that
Earth has warmed and cooled throughout this time. Climate change is
perfectly normal. The IPCC is part of the UN, and thus funded by the UN. The UN is completely controlled by the Globalists that want a communist one world government that is easy to control and manipulate by the super rich. There, fixed it for ya!
2) The IPCC's very existence relies on public belief in
man-made- or 'anthropogenic' global warming (AGW) by carbon dioxide
(CO2) emission. IPCC authors, mostly government and university
researchers, are biased by strong vested interests in AGW (publications;
continuance of salaries; research grants). Similarly, universities have
sacrificed their impartiality by hosting institutes mandated to confirm
and act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall
3) The claimed '97% consensus among scientists' that
AGW exists is a deception. It refers in fact to polls of recent
publications by 'climate scientists', i.e. atmospheric scientists,
lacking deep-time perspective (Bullet 1), whose numbers
opportunistically exploded in the post-1990 AGW boom, creating a strong
incentive for bias (Bullet 2).
And this "poll" was from a very small group, a small percentage, that responded to a mailed survey, like 3% responded. These are obviously going to be the people who have both time, and an agenda, i.e. academics.
4) No educated person 'denies' global warming: it
has been measured (Bullet 11). 'Global-warming denier' and
'Climate-change skeptic' are deceitful terms for man-made-global-warming
doubters and deniers (most of the world's scientists?).
5) CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas'. But, as CO2 rises, its
theoretical heat-trapping ability sharply declines, already 67% 'used
up' at 100 parts per million (ppm) CO2, 84% at 300 ppm (NB 275 ppm when
industrial CO2 output began; Bullet 8), 87% at 400 ppm (today 415 ppm)
and >99% at 1000 ppm. Moreover, Climate Sensitivity (CS), the warming
due to doubling CO2, is guesswork. IPCC 'estimates' CS from climate
models (circular reasoning) as probably between 1.5 and 4.5 (300%
contrast!), but models are defective (Bullet 6). In reality CS might be
very near zero, perhaps explaining why up to 7,000 ppm in Phanerozoic
time (Bullet 7) did not cause 'runaway' warming.
6) Climate models (by climate scientists; Bullet 3) are
so full of assumptions as to be useless or highly misleading, e.g.
forecast 1995-2015 warming turned out to be 2 to 3 times too high.
Bullet 19 gives another drastic failure. Even Wiki (2019) admits: "Each
model simulation has a different guess at processes that scientist don't
understand sufficiently well". Models dismiss the sun's fluctuations
and omit the multi-decade delay between these and resulting warming or
cooling. This time-lag, due to ocean thermal inertia (mixing-time), is
grossly underestimated by IPCC (Bullets 21, 22). This is partly correct....they don't totally dismiss the sun as a factor, but they look at the wrong thing....irradiance. Recently in the last few month IPCC is "allowing" models to look at space weather events, such as galactic cosmic rays.
7) For ~75% of the last 550 million years, CO2 was 2 to
15 times higher than now. Evolution flourished, with CO2 enabling plant
photosynthesis, the basis of all life. Extinction events due to
overheating by CO2 are unknown.
8) Through the last 12,000 years, our current
'Holocene' interglacial epoch, CO2 was a mere 250-290 ppm (compare
plant-starvation level ~150 ppm). Ice cores show that the last five
interglacials (including the Holocene) all reached a similar 250-300
ppm, i.e. a sort of 'equilibrium' value. Since ~1850 when industrial CO2
emissions began, atmospheric CO2 has climbed steeply. CO2 today is 415
ppm, just 0.04% of our atmosphere (i.e. less than half of one-tenth of
1%), far less than in the past (Bullet 7).
9) Until man began adding industrial CO2 about 1850,
warming (determined from 'proxies' like tree rings) since the 1700AD
Little Ice Age nadir was accompanied by slowly rising CO2 (measured in
ice cores). A simple explanation is the well-known release of CO2 by
warming ocean water (decreasing its CO2-holding capacity).
10) Other evidence, besides Bullets 9, that rising CO2
is a consequence, not cause, of global warming is the demonstration by
Humlum et al. (2013) that changes in CO2 growth-rate lag behind changes
in warming-rate, by ~1 year (see also Bullet 28).
11) Also, since the start of industrial CO2 additions
~1850 (Bullet 8), thermometer-measured global warming (1.3 centigrade
[C] degrees) was interrupted by frequent minor coolings of 1 to 3 years
(some attributable to mega-volcano 'winters') and two 30-year
(1878-1910, 1944-1976) coolings (0.2 C degrees each), plus the 1998-2013
'warming pause' (Wiki). In contrast, CO2's rise has accelerated, with
only a brief pause (1887-97) and a mini-reversal (1940-45), both during
the 30-year coolings.
Thermometer measured data also completely ignores that many gauges are in cities which are heat islands. They may indeed be warmer, but to extrapolate to a world wide level is absurd, and it misses the cause (heat island) so ignoring it is wrong. (stock 2018)
12) This unsteady 'sawtooth'-style of Modern Warming
resembles the sawtooth rise of the sun's magnetic output from 1901
toward a rare solar 'Grand Maximum' (peak 1991), unmatched since 300AD !
See Bullet 21.
13) Warming reached a peak in February 2016. Since
then, Earth has cooled for more than 3 years (NB no volcanic
mega-eruption since 1991).
This also coincided with an El Nino (warm Pacific) which was further amplified by a lack of phyto-plankton. Phyto-plankton create gases which nucleate clouds. Plankton do better when not continuously in bright sun, they make their own sunscreen (clouds). But when there is a big Plankton die off (note the huge amount of UMEs Unusual Mortality Events), i.e nothing to eat in the post Fukushima era. Phyto-plankton and stuff like Krill use a biological structure called chitin in their "exoskeletons". Chitin absorbs radiation like a sponge, at 20 to 20,000 time background levels, and there is direct proof using the CS-134/CS-137 radioactive ratio that this is exactly what happened. The Blob of hot water correlated well with the movement of radioactive water across the Pacific. (stock 2016)
14) The 'Svensmark Theory' says rising solar-magnetic
output, by deflecting more cosmic rays, reduces cloudiness. This allows
more of the sun's warmth to heat the ocean and atmosphere (Bullet 28)
instead of being reflected by clouds. In support, a NASA study of
satellite data spanning 1979-2011 (during the 'Modern Warming'; Bullet
12) showed decreasing cloud cover.
15) Vocal climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf (Wiki) of
the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research wrongly said in 2008:
"there is no viable alternative ... [to CO2 as driver of 1940-2005
warming, as] ... different authors agree that solar activity did not
significantly increase". Yet in 1999, physicist Dr Michael Lockwood FRS
(Wiki) wrote in prestigious Nature journal: "the total magnetic flux
leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964" and 2.3 since
1901 ! Take it the next step so people get it.....The magnetic flux is related to number of sunspots. The magnetic interaction with Earth's magnetic field (aka shield) impacts the amount of Galactic Cosmic Rays that can get through to the surface and lower Tropsphere....the low clouds affect the affects of sun heat retainage or reflectance more than high clouds. GCR nucleate (create) clouds. As GCR pass through the atmosphere, they leave a cascade of effects and charged particles. These charged particles are a huge part of getting things to "come together" and have water vapor formed into clouds (stock 2019)
16) Lockwood showed that averaged solar magnetic flux
increased 230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled ! The final
peak value was 5 times the starting minimum value ! Bullets 17 and 18
likewise support Svensmark's theory. (stock 2020, we need more work on creating an easy to use Kp dataset, all the data is available out of Germany, but in such a clunky and piecemeal fashion. There is also an out of the gate false hypothesis that the our Local Yellow Dwarf (LYD otherwise known as our Sun) magnetic fields and coronal holes direct and proportionally affect earth based magnetic field strength. There is a relation, but it is stochastic at this point, things don't always work the way you would think with solar wind, speed, temp, density, etc.
17) After the ~300AD solar Grand Maximum (Bullet 12),
within 100 years Earth warmed to near or above today's temperature. Then
'sawtooth' cooling mimicked the sun's 1,000-year sawtooth decline into
the Little Ice Age.
18) From 8000 to 2000BC, Earth was sometimes warmer
than now for centuries. Then unsteady cooling from 3000BC to the Little
Ice Age paralleled unsteady solar decline after the 'Super-Grand
Maximum' of ~3000BC.
19) This 4,500-year-long cooling mocks IPCC computer
models that instead predict warming by the simultaneous (slow) rise in
CO2. This is the 'The Holocene Temperature Conundrum' of Liu et al.
(2014). See also Bullet 6.
20) Embarrassingly for IPCC, the 8000-2000BC warm
interval (Bullet 18) was already called the 'Holocene Climatic Optimum'
(Wiki) before IPCC's 'CO2 = pollutant' fallacy induced today's AGW
hysteria and pointless multi-trillion-dollar climate-change industry.
The warmth may have benefited human social development.
21) Since thermometer records began (~1850; Bullet 1),
sawtooth global warming (Bullets 11, 12) correlates well with
solar-magnetic flux by applying an 85-year lag, attributable to oceanic
thermal inertia (vast volume, high heat capacity and slow mixing cause
slow response to changes in solar-magnetic flux, hence cloudiness),
grossly underestimated by IPCC (Bullet 22). Thus Modern Warming is
driven ~100% sun, dwarfing any CO2 effect (Bullets 5, 6). Let's give the poor little Greta IPCC dog a bone and grant them maybe 3% non-sun caused climate effects.
22) The IPCC assumes this time-lag (Bullet 21) is much
shorter (< 1 year) and therefore it claims that ongoing global
warming despite solar weakening (since 1991; Bullet 12) must mean that
the warming is driven by CO2 !
23) The last interglacial period, ~120,000 years ago,
was warmer than our Holocene interglacial. Humans and polar bears
survived ! CO2 was then about 275 ppm, i.e. lower than now (Bullet 8),
at a time of greater warmth !
24) The joint rise of temperature and CO2 is a
'spurious correlation', a fluke. So IPCC demonising CO2 as a 'pollutant'
is a colossal blunder, costing trillions of dollars in needless and
ineffectual efforts to reduce it. Instead, governments need to focus
urgently on the imminent metre-scale sun-driven sea level rise. With a rise of 8" in 100 years of the "Modern Warm Period" which has been a god send to humanity, although the spike in population may be a huge problem if the expected Grand Solar Minimum does rear it's ugly head, and it sure looks like it will.
25) Although the sun is now declining since its 1991
magnetic peak, sawtooth warming will continue until ~2075 due to the
85-year lag (Bullet 21). Rising CO2 will continue to raise global food
production. Cooling will begin ~2075 and last at least 28 years (i.e.
post-1991 solar decline to date). Our benign Holocene 'interglacial'
period will eventually end, unfortunately. (stock 2018, 2019 While in Hawaii during the 2018 Volcanic Event, the largest in over 200 years....Idiscovered that the Huge Eruptions almost all happens at night in the wee hours of the morning, shortly after this discovery I correlated this with GCR nucleating dissolved gases in the magma chambers). It didn't occur to me until later that this is a cycclical double whammy....you get more clouds and more volcanic eruptions, a wicked double whammy that can start the cooling trend much quicker, faster, less lag time of 3 years to 10 years)
26) IPCC says sea level (SL) from 0 to 1800AD varied
< 25 centimetres (and <1 metre since 4000BC) and never exceeded
today's SL, therefore the 30-centimetre SL rise since 1800 (average 1.5
millimetres/year) is abnormal (they say), blaming industrial CO2. But
this claim ignores dozens of studies of geological and archaeological
3000BC-1000AD SL benchmarks globally, which reveal 3 or 4 rises (and
falls) of 1-3 metres in < 200 years each (i.e. > 5
millimetres/year), all reaching higher than today, long before
27) If humans were to halt the growth in their
fossil-fuel use, CO2 would soon stabilise at a new equilibrium value
(nearer the optimum for plants). The optimum for plants, and fungi for that matter, is around 1000 PPM, we are no where near optimum, and those who grow indoors, say mushroom and cannibis will add CO2 to get to around 1000)
28) By blaming global warming on atmospheric CO2, the
IPCC implies that ongoing warming of the ocean (e.g. Cheng et al. 2020)
occurs via the atmosphere. But this is backwards. In reality the sun
warms the ocean, which in turn warms the air. Humlum et el. (2013)
showed that small changes in sea-surface temperature precede
corresponding changes in air temperature by 2 months, and precede
changes in CO2's growth rate by 12 months (because warming ocean
releases CO2; Bullet 9). Thus Bullet 28 alone destroys IPCC's argument
that global warming is by CO2.
29) In November 2019, Wikipedia deleted its 'List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming',
which named dozens of renowned PhD scientists (with their own Wikipedia
entries), from diverse sciences, brave enough to publicly challenge the
global CO2 madness. (Tens of thousands of other 'skeptical' scientists
are too timid to join in.) Thus, your children may never know that many
prominent, impartial scientists disagree with the claim by the
under-qualified (Bullet 1) IPCC that global warming is due to man-made
CO2. This is censorship. Fortunately the list survives, both online (for
now) and hard-copy (see my 'Sources' pdf in 'Linked data' — or click HERE). I still use Wikipedia, but just as a very starting point. Wikipedia is a mouthpiece of the Globalists.
- Climate, Earthquake, and Vulcanism Resources
- 2018 Update On Actual Global Warming Data -- HadCRUT Data from the UK Charted
- Videos, Fukshima Blew Up in a Prompt Criticality
- Why Shut Down Nuke?
- Radiation Removal
- Rad Prep Shelter in Place Checklist
- Uranium Aerosolized Into Atmosphere
- Gundersen Email / Theories
- Largest Lies of Nuke
- Baseline is Just One Of The Lies
- Nuke Accidents 101
- Hormesis Is a Lie
- Renewable Energy PV
- Carrington Event and Astronomy
- Rad Maps, Earthquakes, Nuke Bombs, High Quality Pictures
- Chernobyl Documentary 500K
- Conversions / Safety Limits
- 2020 Corona Virus Resources
- Prepper/Survival Resources And Protection from Radiation