Compared to the entire previous history of the Earth, the CO2 levels for the past 40-50 million years have been the lowest ever - dangerously near the starvation-level for plant life.   We should be doing everything we can to increase the CO2 level in the Earth's atmosphere.
Compared to the previous 10,000 years, the past 1600 years have been unusually cold. Even including the warming spike about 1000 AD, the overall average is still well below the norm.   The temperature over the last 750 years has been even more abnormally below-average.
The entire human-induced climate-change deception has been with the goal of achieving political control over people who now live in freedom.
Climate change is
a political issue,
with political ramifications
- freedom vs. control -
and not a scientific issue.
A thousand years ago, things were much warmer.
The Vikings farmed Greenland for 300 years.   Greenland cannot be farmed now; it is too cold.   The glaciers in Alaska were either greatly reduced compared to today, or perhaps absent entirely.
By five hundred years ago, the weather had gotten much colder.
The Vikings had left Greenland – farming there was no longer possible.
Alaskan eskimo tribes living in valleys had to flee glaciers that were moving faster than people could walk.
Glaciers are not a permanent part of the landscape.
Things are warmer now.   Alaskan glaciers are receding, to the alarm of some who are ignorant of natural history.   And yet Antarctica's snow cover and ice sheet have reached their highest levels ever recorded.   That should tell you that the natural wobbles in the Earth's rotation and solar orbit have reduced the solar heating of the southern hemisphere, while increasing the solar heating of the northern hemisphere.
Anything between (and to some extent beyond) those two temperature "extremes", as we observe presently, is statistical, natural variation.   Temperatures are never static, on any scale of time - 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, 10,000 years, or more.   The world's temperatures, CO2 levels, etc., fluctuate due to various long-term and short-term natural cycles.   As the UN's IPCC states: "Climate has always varied on all time-scales"
The causes are not just solar (the Sun being a variable star), but probably cosmological to some extent as well (though luckily for us, at a minimal level over the last 10,000 years; see this article about a supernova that may have caused a mass-extinction event on Earth about 2.6 million years ago).
The different factors, known and unknown, compound and counter-act each other on a regular basis, far beyond the impact of humanity's activities, and in a complexity that confounds our understanding at present.   In mathematical parlance, the environmental impact of humanity's activities gets lost in the much greater variability of natural activity.
Political Power - Political Control
When people whose goal is to have political control over your life are repeatedly caught in lies about the climate data, that data is worthless.
When there are those who plot to steal away the First-Amendment free-speech rights of dissenters, and attempt to use climate change as an excuse of destroying all your rights, their goals should be crystal clear.   They are not interested in removing a danger, but in gaining control over people for their own tyrannical ends.
"... calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent."
That statement, given the opportunity to be implemented and enforced if the Democrats took power, would translate into endless lawsuits against oil and coal companies, draining their resources and reducing their profits - solely because they voice their dissent in opposition to those in power - in opposition to would-be dictators with no respect for freedom; people who view climate change as nothing more than a excuse for subverting our freedom, and as a gateway to their tyrannical grasp of power.
Implemented into law, it would make this web page illegal.   And as simply as that, your First Amendment rights to free speech would be dead.
Note that the founder of Greenpeace lambasted AOC for her silly comments.
If the data was valid, its proponents would not have to lie and cheat and threaten.
To prove a theory as valid requires incontrovertible, inductive and deductive proof.
To prove a theory invalid takes only a single discrepancy. The claim of human-induced climate-change is full of discrepancies.
Supporting the President's Political Policies and Objectives
Consider all those government "scientists" supposedly supporting human-induced climate-change as a "fact":
If your source of income – be it salary or grants – is provided by the government, your income depends on providing research supporting government policies – i.e., supporting the President's political policies and objectives. The government does not support research that would contradict or undermine those policies.
Any honest scientists, or any scientists whose interests lie outside those government intentions, will by choice or by being viewed as non-supportive, necessarily seek employment elsewhere – in private universities or businesses. Those entities unfortunately have more limited budgets, making competition for those jobs much greater. Scientific research in businesses must necessarily support business profitability; purely scientific research and the need for research in climate science is rarely seen as supportive.
Since most research occurs in universities whose budget is largely paid by government grants, or in government agencies, free scientific inquiry is to a large degree absent.
Human-induced climate change is a political hoax – a lie.
Water vapor – the greenhouse gas with the most impact – has been in a decline since records were kept
More CO2 is better
Plants require at least 200 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the atmosphere to survive.   The current level of 400-410 ppm is not too far above starvation-level for plants.   The periods with the most plant growth had much higher levels of CO2, as shown below.   An increase in the level of CO2 will provide a big increase in agricultural producton, reducing hunger, and in increased plant life generally around the world.
Even the worst of the anticipated levels of CO2 are far below what would be harmful to animals and humans.
More CO2 is better, not worse.
Less CO2 >> less plants >> less food.
More CO2 >> more plants >> more food.
CO2 Levels Through Half a Billion Years
The CO2 levels for the past 50 million years has been lower than at any time in the past 250 million years - since before the dinosaurs walked the earth.
Greenland Tempertures In the Past 10,000 Years
– the present temperatures are running well below the average
Temperatures During the Past 4500 Years
Fluctuations in temperatures of this magnitude and duration can only be due to solar fluctuations (again, the Sun is a
variable star).   But why does volcanic activity increase during those periods? The Earth does not change significantly - except for the amount of heat it receives from the Sun.   Heating makes any material expand, and cooling makes any material contract.   That contraction while cooling would (1) increase the pressure on the Earth's molten interior, and (2) create cracks on the Earth's surface.   The pressure would tend to force the molten fluid up through those cracks, and through the porous outer crust, causing the volcanos of note.
Temperatures are never static, on any scale of time - 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, 10,000 years, or more.
As stated by the UN's IPCC: "Climate has always varied on all time-scales".
Visit this webpage for graphs and information on the cooling trends of the past 65 million years, the past 5 million years, the last 10,000 years, the growing ice coverage of Greenland and Antarctica, and more.
264 feet of ice added in Greenland since "Glacier Gal" landed there in 1942 until its recovery in 1992
- over five feet per year
More questions about climate and the weather?   Email them here.
Here is a very perceptive quote:
Climate Depot's Marc Morano compared the push to quickly ratify UN agreement to the sudden release of U.S. hostages by Iran in 1981 shortly after Republican Ronald Reagan was elected president. "The international climate community is terrified of the prospect of a Trump presidency, and with good reason," said Mr. Morano. "Trump has pledged to do a full 'Clexit' and pull out of the U.N. Paris Agreement, overturn the EPA executive orders on climate and defund" the U.N. expert panel that has strongly pressed the case for man-made global warming.
"But the reality is, this treaty is about forcing the U.S. and Europe to redistribute wealth, and it's about enriching the U.N.," he said. "You may as well believe in witchcraft if you actually believe that the U.N. can control the Earth's temperature and manage storminess."
About Those Computer "Models"
Below is a graph of six computer models forecasting the path of Hurricane Matthew, on 7 October, 2016.
It appears as though there is a total lack of consensus on a simple multi-day forecast.
Actually, however, this is a standout example of
Ensemble Forecasting. That process uses multiple models, each run with with multiple sets of input parameters.
This is essentially the making of a number of guesses, in hopes that one will be fairly close. This is no more than guessing the result of rolling the dice. If you make enough guesses, one is bound to be right. The use of Ensemble Forecasting in and of itself implies the total inability to foreast the weather.
In the end, none of the forecasts got it right - not even reasonably close. The storm went up the coast, joining a cold front sweeping across the U.S. (which is typical), through New Jersey and on up to Maine, Newfoundland, and on across the north Atlantic in the usual manner.
"Many factors continue to limit the ability to detect, attribute, and understand current climate change and to project what future climate changes may be." - p.78
"Data from the present and recent past, climate-relevant data for the last few centuries, and for the last several millennia are all needed.   There is a particular shortage of data in polar regions and data for the quantitative assessment of extremes on the global scale." - p.78
"The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." - p.771
"Climate has always varied on all time-scales" - p.97
In fact, the climate modelers do not even attempt to model natural climate change, such as the examples shown here.
Yet it is clearly evident that natural climate change does occur on a constant and ongoing basis.   Temperatures are never static, on any scale of time - 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, 10,000 years, or more.   As stated by the UN's IPCC: "Climate has always varied on all time-scales".
Dr. Spencer notes, "Climate modelers don't understand the cause of natural climate cycles."   This results in circular logic:   "models that cannot simulate natural climate change, but are programmed to be dominated by human-induced climate change, are used as 'proof' that only humans can cause climate change."   In other words, modelers "point to their models as evidence of what they assumed to begin with."
Climate Change Summary – What Do We Know?
Earthly influences on climate
The impact on the climate of the Earth's internal warmth is unknown and cannot be predicted.
The Earth's magnetic poles continually drift, and periodically swap. The most recent swap was 42,000 years ago, and had a substantial impact on Earth's climate.
The impact of the current drift of the north pole (from north Canada to north Russia) on climate is unknown and cannot be predicted.
The causes of changes in Earth's average temperatures and CO2 levels are unknown and cannot be predicted.
The impact of climate on the severity of hurricanes and the levels of precipitation and cloud cover are unknown and cannot be predicted.
Changes in the Earth's average temperature and CO2 levels cannot be correlated to each other, or to other factors, excepting large volcanic eruptions such as occurred during the Younger Dryas period, about 13,000 - 11,500 years ago.
CO2 levels have been particularly low for the past five million years, and (for plant life) dangerously low during the Ice Ages of the past million years.
There is a direct correlation between CO2 levels, plant growth, and food supply.
Likewise, temperatures have been unusually low for the past four million years.
Temperatures began dropping further for unknown reasons 700 years ago, hitting a minimum about 1650.  Temperatures have been recovering since then, but are still colder than prior to 1300.
Solar influences on Earth's climate
The impact on Earth's climate of the changes and perturbations of the Earth's orbit around the sun is unknown and cannot be predicted.
The Sun is a variable star. The impact on Earth's climate of the variations in the Sun's output of light, heat, and other radiation is unknown and cannot be predicted.
Cosmic influences on Earth's climate
The impact on Earth's climate of cosmic radiation (i.e., that from other suns, novas, supernovas, black holes, etc.) is unknown and cannot be predicted.
Past cosmic events, such as the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and the supernova of 2.5 million years ago, have impacted Earth's climate and caused mass extinctions.
"Climate has always varied on all time-scales" – U.N.'s IPCC
But the causes of that variation are generally unknown and the impacts cannot be predicted.
The Accuracy of Weather Predictions
In 1963, meteorologist Edward Lorenz showed mathematically that, due to all the unknown sources of impacts on Earth's climate, reasonably accurate weather prediction beyond about three days is impossible.
All forecasts are statistically-based guesses, and are particularly prone to ever-greater error beyond three days. The weather / climate for one week out, for two weeks out, for the next month, for the next year, for the next ten years, for the next thirty years, or in the year 2100 cannot be predicted. The more distant the date, the less accurate is the forecast.
Those statistical guesses are based on computer models. Those models' parameters are set by the person running the model, based on his beliefs. As Edward Lorenz demonstrated, the slightest, supposedly insignificant change to those parameters results in radically different forecasts.
Statistics are not proof.
Statistics never establish causality. Never.
Politics and Earth's climate
Unlike any other country in the world, the United States' Constitution is above the government, beyond its ability to change.
Politicians naturally work to circumvent that or any limitation on their political power, to subvert it, and to erode its control over them.
Politicians in other countries likewise work to subvert the U.S. Constitution. It stands as an affront to their own power, and as a beacon and reminder to their own population, undermining those politicians' own power over that subject population, and giving them hope of a better future.
Politicians – both in the U.S. and in other countries (and in the U.N.) – will seize on and utilize any tool which they believe can aid them in their quest for greater power and control over populations.
Politicians' Rule 1: "Never let a crisis go to waste." Rule 2: "Manufacture the crisis." Climate change is that kind of "crisis".
Stoking fears of climate change to enact laws that limit freedoms under the guise of resolving those issues and fears provides an avenue to greater political power.
Politicians naturally believe they are better qualified to govern the actions of others than are those others themselves.
Politicians in countries which oppose the U.S. also see climate-based limitations placed on the U.S. as a means of diminishing its power and influence, which means more power for them.
Politicians uniformly strive for more political power. The greater the political power at stake, the more ruthless the pursuit.
Politics is highly competitive, and politicians tend to be replaced by politicians who strive harder and are more ruthless than their predecessors.
The U.S. Constitution remains the best means ever developed to assure the greatest possible limitation and restraint of political power.
Weather Forecasting and Statistically-based Modeling
All modeling used for weather forecasting, whether for near-term weather forecasting or for the climate in some more-distant future, is based on statistics.
Statistics are a record – a historical record – of what has already occurred.
Statistical modeling uses the past to forecast the future.
Statistical modeling looks for historical patterns and trends, and uses any it finds as a tool to forecast the future.
But the future is never just like the past.
That use of statistics to forecast the future is identical to trying to drive your car solely by looking in the rear-view mirror.
It is possible to drive that way for a very short period of time – maybe only a few feet, maybe even for a hundred yards – if there are no sudden curves, no oncoming traffic, no kids on bicycles, no busy intersections – i.e., no unforeseen events – in front of you.
For both driving a car using only the rearview mirror, and for statistical modeling, the number of unpredictable events that could happen quickly pile up, becoming ever greater. Over time, an ever-greater number of those possible events – and others not foreseen – actually do occur.
The inability to anticipate an unexpected incident eventually and inevitably results in a failure – not only for statistical modeling, but in the consequences for the people affected.
The whole subject has an exciting-sounding name – Chaos Theory – and includes astounding amounts of complexity.
Mathematicians specializing in Chaos Theory have developed some extremely complex calculations, trying to increase the accuracy of not only their weather predictions, but also similar predictions in other fields of interest as well – with limited successes.
They keep on piling up complexities upon complexities – trying to build castles in the clouds.
If only they could get that first foundation laid and solidly attached to the clouds, the rest would be easy. They could build magnificent castles indeed. There is no doubt about it.
But it is getting that first layer of stones and mortar attached to the clouds that is the problem. Those castles' foundations just cannot seem to be solidly attached in place by anyone – mathematicians included.
They have lots of extremely complex equations, far beyond what any of us mere mortals would want to try to understand. And yet, they just cannot seem to get that first layer of the foundation started for those castles in the clouds.
In the end, they are reduced to saying, "If we could change the problem a little, in just the right way, we could get an answer."
Well, of course. If only you could change the rules, the rules would be different.
If only you could build your castle's foundation on the ground, you could build your castle.
If only you could see what is in front of your car by looking through the windshield instead of looking in the rear-view mirror, you would know where you are going.
If only statistics could establish causality, statistically-based modeling would work.
Because the forecasting models invariably produce incorrect forecasts, the Chaos Theory mathematicians have developed a new forecasting technique: "Ensemble Forecasting".
With Ensemble Forecasting, multiple forecasting models are run, each with multiple sets of inputs, in the hope that one of them will produce a result close to what actually happens.
This is equivalent to rolling a pair of dice and, rather than predict the result will be "7", make the prediction that the result will be "5", "6", "7", "8", or "9". By giving more guesses, the chance that one of them will be right is increased.
The Ensemble Forecasting used for Hurricane Matthew in 2016 demonstrated the lack of validity of this technique: none of the forecasts got an answer that was even remotely close to the actual path of the hurricane.
Ensemble forecasting is an implicit admission that weather forecasting does not work.
Weather forecasting is barely precise within a few hours. We have all experienced isolated or scattered storms; they can generally be predicted to occur somewhere in an area, but predicting a specific location is virtually impossible.
Weather forecasting further into the future becomes increasingly imprecise so quickly that forecasting beyond three days – and as Hurricane Matthew proved, sometimes beyond a fraction of a day – must become progressively more vague to be even remotely close to what actually happens.
To claim to be able to predict the climate of a year or ten years from now, or in 2100, is laughably absurd nonsense.
Climate, Chaos, and Politics
Mathematicians who have staked their careers, reputations, and incomes on Chaos Theory have a vested interest in convincing and assuring those who fund them that continued research will enable the development of substantially-improved means of the successful prediction of events through statistical modeling.
The same is true for the Meteorologists and Climatologists who adopt and use those models.
Similarly, the Politicians who have based their rise to power on "fighting Climate Change" have just as much of a vested interest in perpetuating the claims of that same coterie of Mathematicians, Meteorologists, and Climatologists.
"For the polar darkness period, from April through September, the average temperature was -60.9 degrees Celsius (-77.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a record for those months," the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said.
On September 16, Arctic sea ice likely reached its annual minimum extent of 4.72 million square kilometers (1.82 million square miles). The 2021 minimum is the twelfth lowest in the nearly 43-year satellite record.
The graph above compares yearly levels of Arctic ice coverage.
The 2021 minimum is the twelfth lowest in the nearly 43-year satellite record, since record-keeping began in 1984. The last 15 years are the lowest 15 sea ice extents in the satellite record.
43 years is hardly a long enough period to indicate climatic trends. If it were a continuation of the warming trend since 1650, the lowest point of the Little Ice Age, however, that would be encouraging news.
Propane inventories are 21% below the five-year average.
A real energy crisis exists in Europe that was created by a combination of political missteps, climate change fear-mongering, and a woke energy policy that could leave much of Europe and Asia undersupplied as they head into winter. It is also a foreshadowing of what may happen in the U.S.
This could be one of the most expensive winters that we've seen in years, with the risk of destroying the U.S. economy and leaving poor people out in the cold.
The sharp rise in energy prices is already feeding into red hot inflation pressures.
Europe made very bad decisions in its rush to get more carbon-neutral without thinking of the longer-term consequences. Its leaders also made a huge mistake relying more on Russia and their state-owned oil company Gazprom to supply Europe with natural gas. They didn't remember Russia's track record of withholding supplies from places like the Ukraine and Yugoslavia and its tendency to use energy as a political weapon. Now Europe and the United States are accusing Russia of manipulating natural gas supplies for their own benefit. Russia is rebuilding its inventories while allowing the rest of Europe’s inventories to fall, putting them at a distinct economic and geopolitical disadvantage going into winter.
These shortsighted decisions by Europe caused the price of natural gas to go to record highs, and that is now the equivalent of $150.00 for a barrel oil. This is hurting their economy and is causing factories and fertilizer plants to shut down, which is therefore causing shortages of goods that would normally be made with oil and natural gas in those shutdown factories. They have shortages of CO2 that puts the fizz in your soda and is used in agriculture for meat production and used to cool nuclear plants.
Imports of oil from Russia to the United States have hit all-time highs. We are more reliant on Russia because we cannot get as much supply from our oil producers here in the U.S. Biden’s drilling moratoriums, discouragement of investment in the U.S. oil and gas sector, as well as the demonization of the oil and gas industry, are putting the U.S. on the verge of an energy crisis.
President Joe Biden has been great for Russian oil and gas producers, and for Russian President Vladamir Putin, energy dominance and political dominance go hand in hand. Biden's policy actions have only rewarded Russia.
All policies implemented by the Biden administration have created jobs, prosperity and influence for Russia’s energy sector. This has come at the expense of U.S. producers and consumers who are now paying on average over $3 per gallon at the pump.
Biden administration waived Trump-era sanctions on the companies behind Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Now, the pipeline will be built. Allowing that contradicts the administration's aggressive climate policy, with U.S. gas producers hit with a drilling moratorium on federal lands and tougher regulations that have curbed U.S. production, making us more dependent on foreign oil producers.
As a result, Russia's exports of oil to the U.S. are at an all-time high.
Meanwhile, U.S. oil production has fallen by 1.715 million barrels from a year ago, thanks to Biden's policies.
In his new book "Unsettled," Physicist Steven E. Koonin, Undersecretary for Science in the US Department of Energy under President Barack Obama, explains how climate research is being undermined and mispresented. Our current state of knowledge about the climate and human influences indicates there is no climate crisis. Hurricanes, tornados, heat waves, and droughts are not getting worse and deaths related to extreme weather events are declining. The public doesn't know this because prominent research bodies, some individual scientists, the press, environmental lobbyists, and politicians are ignoring uncertainties and mispresenting what climate research shows in order to persuade the public that we face a climate crisis. Misrepresenting climate science undermines science itself and democracy.
In this article in Science magazine, scientists link the most recent magnetic instability to global environmental change. About 42,000 years ago, a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic poles triggered massive climate shifts and caused environmental changes to sweep across the globe. If such an event happened today, it would wreak havoc on satellites and electrical grids, but its environmental impact is less well understood.
“For the first time ever, we have been able to precisely date the timing and environmental impacts of the last magnetic pole switch.” We can "measure, and date, the spike in atmospheric radiocarbon levels caused by the collapse of Earth’s magnetic field."
“We essentially had no magnetic field at all – our cosmic radiation shield was totally gone.” This left the planet vulnerable to solar flares and cosmic rays. Magnetic reversal – and subsequent radiation exposure – may be linked to the growth of ice sheets and glaciers across North America at the time, as well as shifts in major wind belts and tropical storms. Several other major events also occurred around 42,000 years ago, including the disappearance of Australian megafauna and the extinction of the Neanderthals. Both could be linked to these widespread environmental changes.
The link between the magnetic field and climate is a long-standing question. This study may help provide a framework to study the potential environmental and evolutionary shifts during the last full magnetic reversal, 780,000 years ago – and could help us understand the implications of a future reversal.
Over the past 170 years, the Earth’s magnetic field has weakened by around 9%, leading scientists to speculate that a reversal might be imminent. Increased exposure to solar storms and other cosmic radiation could be devastating to our satellites and electrical infrastructure, as well as climate.
“A magnetic pole reversal or extreme change in Sun activity would be unprecedented climate change accelerants.”
OPEC, which met its match in Trump, sees Biden as a business booster
President Joe Biden has a plan to make OPEC great again by raising the price of oil and thwarting competition from U.S. and Canadian oil producers.
On his first day in office, he made decisions that spread joy across the OPEC nations by revoking the permit for the Keystone Pipeline, which would help make Canadian oil less competitive on the global market allowing the cartel to maintain or even gain global oil market share. That eliminated at least 11,000 oil and gas jobs in the U.S. and Canada that should now be picked up by OPEC.
The administration also temporarily banned the issuance of new permits and leases for drilling and fracking on federal lands. The U S. Chamber of Commerce warns that a ban on fracking would eliminate 19 million jobs between 2021-2025 while reducing U.S. Gross Domestic Product by $7.1 trillion over the same period.
This is a welcome shift for the poor OPEC cartel that had fallen on hard times in recent years. Not only did they take a huge financial hit from the historic drop in demand from COVID-19 last year they have also had to compete with U.S. and Canadian oil and gas producers for jobs and market share for their energy exports.
Biden's policies will also be a big win for Russia and President Vladimir Putin.
President Biden’s climate czar, John Kerry, admitted Wednesday that the US reducing its emissions to zero wouldn’t make much of a difference in the global climate change fight — before pushing domestic manufacturing of electric cars and solar panels in favor of energy production.
“He knows Paris alone is not enough,” Kerry told reporters at a White House press briefing, referring to Biden re-entering the US in the Paris Climate Agreement in one of his first acts as president. “Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” Kerry conceded.
Kerry also acknowledged that it would be difficult to bring the world’s top polluters to the table, including China, which produces 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.
Biden has denied that oil and gas jobs would be lost in his curbing of domestic energy production, even though his last “climate action” scrapping the Keystone XL pipeline will result in thousands of layoffs. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said Wednesday that Biden’s energy plan would take a “wrecking ball” to oil, gas and coal jobs in states across the country. “I think he is kicking the American people when they’re down economically."
Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend since 1650, the year’s globally averaged temperature was 1.84 degrees Fahrenheit (1.02 degrees Celsius) warmer than the "baseline" 1951-1980 mean, when reliable global temperatures first began to be recorded.
The Earth began cooling about 1275, in what has been labelled the "Little Ice Age". Temperatures hit their lowest point about 1650, and have been recovering ever since.
As one might expect, Earth's environment changes with time. Is the change a part of natural variation, or some cyclical sequence of changes, or does it indicate a definitive trend away from what we currently experience? If it is a trend, what are the changes that will occur?
The degassing of early Earth’s magma ocean may have produced an atmosphere similar to that found on Venus today – rich in carbon dioxide and relatively poor in nitrogen – new research suggests.
Modelling indicates that the atmospheric differences between the two planets have more to do with Earth’s mass and its distance from the Sun rather than the respective accretionary histories.
“The key difference we looked for was how oxidised the iron within the magma became. What we found was that, after cooling down from the magma state, the young Earth had an atmosphere that was slightly oxidising, with carbon dioxide as its main constituent, as well as nitrogen and some water.”
Earth and Venus began with similar atmospheres, but Venus lost its water because it is closer to the Sun and is thus hotter. Earth kept its water, primarily in the form of oceans, which absorbed much of the CO2 from the air.
NASA has some good news, the world is a greener place today than it was 20 years ago. What prompted the change? Well, it appears China and India can take the majority of the credit. The countries are responsible for the largest greening of the planet in the past two decades. The United States sits at number 7 in the total change in vegetation percent by decade.
However, much of the greening in China and India comes from the "intensive" cultivation of crops, NASA found. This accounts for 32 percent of the greening in China and 82 percent in India.
About one-third Earth's vegetated lands experienced greening, including a conspicuous portion of North America stretching from southern Mexico to high into the boreal forests of Canada.
Vast swaths of the Arctic tundra are greening too. While the article labels this as "unprecedented", prior to three million years ago, the Arctic Sea was free of ice.
The article stresses that "Carbon dioxide concentrations are now the highest they've been on Earth in some 15 million years." But it neglects to give the whole picture: Carbon dioxide concentrations had always been higher than in the past 15 million years, and that the current concentrations are dangerously close to the starvation level for plants.
Last week, sea ice started forming along the shore of Hudson Bay, from the north end all the way south into James Bay. So far, the shorefast ice that’s forming is only a narrow strip along the coast but is thickening and becoming broader each day, which means that unless something changes dramatically, the bears should all be on the ice at the end of the week, an exodus from shore that hasn’t happened this early in WH since 1993 (the earliest since 1979). Virtually all Western Hudson Bay bears leave the shore within about 2 days of sea ice concentration reaching 10%.
Freeze-up dates of 10-12 November or so (Day 314-316) for 2017, 2018, and 2019 are some of the earliest freeze-up dates recorded since 1979 (the earliest being 6 November, Day 310, in 1991 and 1993), even earlier than the average for the 1980s. And 2020 is earlier still.
Even the first bears that came ashore in mid-July will have only spent about 16 weeks on land – at least a month less than they did a decade ago. Four months spent ashore was the historical average for Western Hudson Bay bears in the 1970s and 1980s. This year, most polar bears will have spent only about 13-14 weeks on land because they did not come ashore until early August.
Despite this being the best of six very good years for the polar bears of Western Hudson Bay, activist polar bear scientists continue to sell the public their false message of doom based on data from years ago. As I’ve mentioned previously, polar bear data from Western Hudson Bay prior to these good years (i.e. up to 2009 only) was used for the latest model predicting future conditions for polar bears elsewhere in the Arctic. These good years for sea ice and bears have simply been ignored in long-term projections.
Deforestation is driving many of Southeast Asia's species towards extinction. But the opposite once occurred as rainforests replaced grasslands thousands of years ago, megafauna and ancient humans (Home erectus) vanished.
For nearly a million years, the region stretching from modern-day southern China to Borneo was covered in grasslands. Many species of megafauna thrived in this vastly different landscape, including giant hyenas, buffalo- and antelope-like bovines, and two species of ancient elephants. But over the past 100,000 years, these savannahs began to retreat. By the dawn of the Holocene 11,700 years ago, they had been replaced by the lush, dense rainforest we see today. The significant environmental change was too much for many species to cope with: as the savannah environments disappeared, so too did the megafauna.
The changes in the length and duration of ice ages led to a resurgence of rainforest, to which the megafauna was poorly adapted, including species of ancient humans such as Homo erectus, which were also unable to adapt to the more dynamic forest environment and soon disappeared. This contrasts with most megafauna extinction hypotheses, which suggest that modern humans are the primary cause of extinctions.
Only Homo sapiens appears to have had the required skills to successfully exploit and thrive in rainforest environments.
"The Arctic is rapidly warming and experiencing tremendous changes in sea ice, ocean and terrestrial regions. Lack of long-term scientific observations makes it difficult to assess whether Arctic changes statistically represent a 'new Arctic' climate."
"The rate of change is remarkable. It’s a period of such rapid change that observations of past weather patterns no longer show what you can expect next year."
The changes are not uniform: the far north is warming more rapidly than lower latitudes due to Arctic amplification, which occurs because light-coloured sea ice, which reflects heat back into space, is replaced by darker ocean water, which traps heat.
"Not only will the warming exceed that of lower latitudes, but daily fall–winter temperatures will increase by 16–28 degrees C for most of the Arctic Ocean. Rainfall will replace snowfall, with an extension of the rainy season by 2-4 months. These changes have extreme consequences for Arctic communities and local ecosystems."
Hurrah! Global warming! Climate change is a natural part of Earth's existence. Now if we could only increase the level of CO2, that would make plant life more sustainable; CO2 is too close to the starvation level for plant life – and hence our lives – to be assured.
Although overhunting led to the demise of some prehistoric megafauna after the last ice age, a new study found that the extinction of the woolly rhinoceros may have been caused by climate change. By sequencing ancient DNA from 14 woolly rhinos, researchers found that their population remained stable and diverse until only a few thousand years before it disappeared from Siberia, when temperatures likely rose too high.
"It was initially thought that humans appeared in northeastern Siberia fourteen or fifteen thousand years ago, around when the woolly rhinoceros went extinct. But recently, there have been several discoveries of much older human occupation sites, the most famous of which is around thirty thousand years old. So, the decline towards extinction of the woolly rhinoceros doesn't coincide so much with the first appearance of humans in the region. If anything, we actually see something looking a bit like an increase in population size during this period."
"We found that after an increase in population size at the start of a cold period some 29,000 years ago, the woolly rhino population size remained constant and that at this time, inbreeding was low." This stability lasted until well after humans began living in Siberia, contrasting the declines that would be expected if the woolly rhinos went extinct due to hunting.
The DNA data also revealed genetic mutations that helped the woolly rhinoceros adapt to colder weather. One of these mutations, a type of receptor in the skin for sensing warm and cold temperatures, has also been found in woolly mammoths. Adaptations like this suggest the woolly rhinoceros, which was particularly suited to the frigid northeast Siberian climate, may have declined due to the heat of a brief warming period, known as the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, that coincided with their extinction towards the end of the last ice age. "We're coming away from the idea of humans taking over everything as soon as they come into an environment, and instead elucidating the role of climate in megafaunal extinctions."
Nitrogen oxides emitted in aircraft exhaust increase the production of ozone, a major greenhouse gas, but they also destroy methane, a big contributor to atmospheric warming. Also contrails heat and cool the planet at the same time by trapping atmospheric heat while reflecting sunlight. The net result is that contrails are only about half as bad as previously thought.
Texas researchers from the University of Houston, Baylor University and Texas A&M University have discovered evidence for why the earth cooled dramatically 13,000 years ago, dropping temperatures by about 3 degrees Centigrade. The resolution to this case of mistaken identity recently was reported this article in the journal Science Advances.
"This work shows that the geochemical signature associated with the cooling event is not unique but occurred four times between 9,000 and 15,000 years ago. Thus, the trigger for this cooling event didn't come from space. Prior geochemical evidence for a large meteor exploding in the atmosphere instead reflects a period of major volcanic eruptions."
After a volcano erupts, the global spread of aerosols reflects incoming solar radiation away from Earth and may lead to global cooling post eruption for one to five years, depending on the size and timescales of the eruption.
"This period of rapid cooling is associated with the extinction of a number of species, including mammoths and mastodons, and coincides with the appearance of early human occupants of the Clovis tradition."
"These signatures were likely the result of major eruptions across the Northern Hemisphere, including volcanoes in the Aleutians, Cascades and even Europe." The Younger Dryas cooling lasted about 1,200 years, so a sole volcanic eruptive cause is an important initiating factor, but other Earth system changes, such as cooling of the oceans and more snow cover were needed to sustain this colder period. This research underscores that extreme climate variability since the last ice age is attributed to unique Earth-bound drivers rather than extraterrestrial mechanisms.
ESA: In an area stretching from Africa to South America, Earth’s magnetic field is gradually weakening. Scientists are using data from @esa_swarm to improve our understanding of this area known as the 'South Atlantic Anomaly'. Since 1970, the anomaly has been growing in size, as well as moving westward at a pace of approximately 20 kilometres (12 miles) per year.
In the last two centuries, Earth's magnetic field has lost about 9 percent of its strength on average. Since our planet's magnetic field acts as a kind of shield – protecting Earth from solar winds and cosmic radiation, in addition to determining the location of the magnetic poles – any reduction in its strength is an important event we need to monitor closely, as these changes could ultimately have significant implications for our planet.
The National Weather Service's (NWS) Weather Prediction Center (WPC) said that an "unusual weather pattern evolving across North America," including an "unusually cold" air mass from eastern Canada, is making a late-season snowstorm "increasingly likely" for the interior Northeast.
Demise of coal in rich countries brings global carbon emissions to a stall
Coal generation in advanced economies fell by nearly 15%. U.S. emissions fell 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States leading the world in total emissions decline since 2000. Emissions in the European Union declined 5%, while Japan’s emissions were 4.3% lower in 2019. But emissions in the rest of the world grew by nearly 400 million tons, with 80% of that increase coming from developing countries in Asia.
"Inconvenient Facts" - Apple shuts down iPad / iPhone app
- Inconvenient Fact No. 53: "There are more polar bears now than we've had for 50 years."
- Inconvenient Fact No. 10 cites a "Recent Inconvenient Pause of 18 years in warming, despite rise in CO2."
- Inconvenient Fact No. 12: "Modern warming began long before SUVs or coal-fired plants."
- Inconvenient Fact No. 21: "The current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented."
Several of these scientists co-authored or reviewed portions of Climate Change Reconsidered, a series of comprehensive climate science volumes compiled by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
Among the highlights of the EIKE conference, scientists will discuss the latest science regarding natural climate cycles, sea level, solar variability versus atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, shortcomings regarding renewable power, flaws in asserted temperature histories, the benefits of a warmer world, desertification, and ulterior goals of climate activists.
“The scientific evidence and conclusions reported by climate scientists are far different than what the environmental left and their legacy media allies would like the public to believe.”
Someone had this perceptive commentary on geological issues -
No evidence the sealevel is rising. However, it's a matter of perception. I forget which geology class it was mentioned in when I was getting my geology degree, but the west coast rocks are rising, meaning that the sealevel appears to be falling, and the east coast rocks are subsiding, meaning that sealevel appears to be rising there.
There is also the perception that some subsiding islands mean sealevel rise and those islands that are rising suggest sealevels lowering.There IS a major problem with many islands that have starved out their coral reefs from overfishing. Some have even all but destroyed the live corals at the top from dynamite fishing. And some heavily populated islands have polluted their island reefs to death. The upshot is that coral atolls are built by subducting ocean floors, while the corals keep growing toward sunlight and thus keep the atoll above sealevel. Well, these goobers have damaged or killed off their corals. Time to swim.
But it's so much easier to blame someone else, and so religions like global warming make it easy for them. If it's magically someone else's fault, then they don't have to fix their own problems like bleaching of the corals from aspergillus from soil erosion.
The Gobekli Tepe setlement was built at the very beginning of the human race's transition from nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes to permanent settlement, supported by the discovery and use of the methods of agriculture.   This article suggests that the catastrophic damage caused by the comet may have triggered the transition, due to a greater dependence on agriculture as a necessry means to survival.
If true, human civilization can be pinpointed as having begun at Gobekli Tepe, about 10,950 BC.
In another statement, the point was made, "One problem that persists is that there is still only a relatively short series of direct measurements on which to base our understanding of the Arctic. Satellite monitoring of the Arctic only began in 1978, giving us less than forty years of reliable data." (emphasis added)
In studying the climate, forty years is but an instant in time.   Natural variation will inevitably mask any man-made impact during such a short period.   No claim of human impact on climate or specifically, the Arctic ice pack, is therefore possible.   To do so is to state an unabashed falsehood - a deliberate, deceptive lie, which can only serve the purpose of the liar.
- - -
Media falsely spins Trump's comments on climate change
- The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 - the longest spell since the Civil War.
- Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
- Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
- Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in 'global warming': Now says "I'm not sure the whole thing isn't crazy." - Condemns green movement: "It's a religion really, It's totally unscientific".
As noted, "Climate change is a political issue, with political ramifications - freedom vs. control - and not a scientific issue."
14 October 2016
Sadly, there are always those sick souls who will find any excuse to feed their desire to see rampant death and destruction.
As one person noted about Hurricane Matthew's passage,
"Some seem disappointed there isn't tragic loss of life/apocalyptic."
That describes the nature of those perverse people who so hate their own lives (and people generally) that they would like nothing better than to see destruction on a global scale, even if it would mean their own deaths.   The "global warming" / "climate change" movements serve to provide them with an excuse to feed that self-destructive hatred.
There is no rationale beyond their hatred for life itself that has any meaning for them.   "Science" - i.e., their selective use of a limited, isolated set of facts - to them is just an excuse.