There Is No Climate Crisis: History Shows the Earth has Seen Far Worse, even when CO2 was 30% less than at present.

There Is No Climate Crisis: History shows the Earth has seen far worse, even when CO2 was 30% less than at present.
BY TYLER DURDEN

Climate science has been so suffocated by ideological zealotry, it's becoming difficult just to find normal objective analysis these days.  Any piece of data that contradicts the man-made climate change narrative is surrounding by a spin machine that either dismisses the information, or obscures it in a deluge of global warming propaganda, inoculating the reader well before they get a chance to digest the news that maybe climate change is not all it's cracked up to be.

Whenever high temperatures are reported in the US, or Europe, the news is hyper-inflated into wild theories of climate Apocalypse by the media, but weather-history suggests the panic is fabricated rather than justified. 

In fact, any hot weather event you can pick out in recent years is likely overshadowed by a much worse event decades or centuries before “man-made carbon pollution” was ever "on the radar". 

   

For example, the media is frantic over the current drought and “record temps” in Europe this summer, warning that it could become the “worst drought” in 500 years.  Of course, this claim opens the door to a question that climate scientists and propagandists don't want to answer:  What happened 500 years ago? 

A similar level of global warming hysteria was present during a heat wave in Europe in 2003, as well as in 2018. 

Mega-drought of 1540

The few climate scientists net yet bought and paid for by governments and the UN have had to point out that these droughts are nothing compared to the living hell that was the drought of 1540

This event is often termed a “mega-drought” because the region suffered historically hot temps while receiving almost no rain for a year.

Temperatures that year averaged 5°C to 7° C  above average temperatures in Europe at present.   In US terms, that means daily summer temps of around 104° F. 

Hundreds of historic accounts written at the time describe around half a million deaths (Europe's population was much smaller), along with vast wildfires and a winter in Italy that “felt like July.” 

Keep in mind carbon levels in Europe in 1540 were 30% LOWER than they are at present, yet, the region suffered perhaps the worst warming event in its recorded history. 

Today's climate data is based on records held by the NOAA and other institutions, and these sparse, inaccurate records only go back to 1880.

Vast land, sea and ice-covered areas of the world had no measurement stations. Using such data "as a starting point" is pure conjecture, has nothing to due with being science/fact-based

So, whenever you hear the mainstream media rant about record temperatures, they are using a tiny sliver of global weather history going back a little over a century. 

Any honest scientist in this field will tell you that the Earth's climate record is vast compared to the limited data used by global warming ideologues, and the majority of destructive weather crises have occurred well before man-made carbon emissions. 

 

It certainly wasn't carbon pollution from cars, farming and industry that caused the crisis in 1540.

Try doing any research on the 1540 event and you will be buried in a pile of mainstream articles that acknowledge the disaster.

But climate agitators are using that example to show why we must comply with carbon restrictions and climate authoritarianism in 2022. 

They say “Look at what happened to Europe in 1540.  You don't want that to happen again, do you?”

 

Of course, humanity had no say or control over the weather in 1540, just as we have no say or control over the weather today. 

There was no carbon based global warming back then, and there is no carbon based global warming now.

 

Scientists still have no idea what caused many of the warming events of the past including the crisis of 1540, so why should we have blind faith in their claims that carbon is the cause of warming in recent years? 

In fact, the NOAA and other climate research institutions still offer no concrete proof of a relationship between carbon emissions and rising temperatures. 

Their argument is they have excluded all other possible causes, leaving only carbon as the remainder. 

This is not science, this is haphazard guesswork.  

If there was ever a field that defies the logic, reason and analysis commonly associated with the scientific method, it is climate science. 

 

Set aside the fact billions of dollars in funding are paid out to climate scientists every year, but only to those scientists that operate from the assumption that climate change is caused by human beings. 

That is to say, there are numerous incentives for scientists to discount other causes for global warming.  They are not scientists, they are paid political activists. 

Luckily, temperatures are not that high.  NOAA's own data shows that the average temperature of the Earth has risen less than 1°C in the past century.  This is nothing, so why all the panic?

Plus the 1 C is based on a dubious starting point, as noted above.

Let's just say carbon controls are a powerful tool for micromanaging the population and justifying authoritarianism in the name of the “greater good.” 

If the public is convinced to accept false climate change narratives, then government would have the ability to control every aspect of daily life, from the amount of electricity we use, to the food we eat, to the businesses we can run, to the level of production and the size of the population. 

This is not fiction, this is reality, and it is happening much faster than many people realize, all in the name of saving the planet from a CO2 threat that doesn't exist.  

NEW ENGLAND

By the way, all of this, including rolling blackouts at ZUB-ZERO temperatures, and a lack of gas and oil for  space heating, applies to New England, if:

1) New York State keeps obstructing new gas pipelines from Pennsylvania to New England; THIS SHOULD BE LEGALLY FORBIDDEN AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE OF INTER-STATE COMMERCE, and

2) The New England oil, gas and coal storage capacities near power plants are not increased by at least 100% to ensure RELIABLE ELECTRICAL SERVICE IN WINTER, WHICH WOULD BE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, IF UNCERTAIN, MOTHER-NATURE, WEATHER-DEPENDENT WIND AND SOLAR WERE FURTHER EXPANDED, AS THE US AIMS TO BLINDLY COPY THAT DISASTROUS EUROPEAN SCENARIO

These articles and image are provided for reference.

.

ISO-NE REPORT OF 2021 ECONOMIC STUDY: FUTURE GRID RELIABILITY STUDY PHASE 1

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2022/07/2021_economi...

 

DEEP DIVE SUMMARY OF THE ISO-NE REPORT

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-england-future-grid-study-iso/...

 

LIFE WITHOUT OIL

Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro.

Folks, including Biden's attendants, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.

The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries

If you do not have abundant low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.

APPENDIX 1

 

These articles contain significant information regarding wind, solar and grid-scale battery systems

 

GRID-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT SHORTFALL OF ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-sys...

COLD WEATHER OPERATION IN NEW ENGLAND DECEMBER 24, 2017 TO JANUARY 8, 2018

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cold-weather-operation...

ANALYSIS OF WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY LULLS AND ENERGY STORAGE IN GERMANY

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-...

IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED    

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN US NORTHEAST

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

APPENDIX 2

 

These articles explain a lot about the world-wide “Climate Crisis” scam, based on highly compromised surface station measurements, which typically read HIGH.

 

Climate scientists SUBJECTIVELY adjust the readings for use in their SUBJECTIVE computerized-temperature-calculation programs, which are used in the reports of IPCC, etc., for scare-mongering purposes.

 

New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-surface-stations-r...

 

Weather- Just how does it happen?

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/weather-just-how-does-...

 

A summary of the results of three “Physics of the Earth’s Atmosphere” papers, which were submitted for peer review at the Open Peer Review Journal.

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/19/summary-the-physics-of-t...

 

APPENDIX 3

 

Satellites and balloons measure temperatures of the Troposphere, which starts at ground level, and has an average height of 59,000 ft at the tropics, 56,000 ft at the middle latitudes, and 20,000 ft at the poles. Above those levels starts the Stratosphere.

 

Balloons directly measure temperatures. Satellites measure radiation, from which temperatures are calculated. 

Both consistently measure much lower temperatures than the average of 102 computer-generated graphs.

See Appendix 2 and 3

 

The data in the below images is for a 43-y period.

There is global warming, but it is not anywhere near as much as scare-mongers are claiming.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-sys...

 

1) Objective satellite and balloon temperatures increased from 0.00 to 0.5 C, or, or 0.116 C/decade 

2) Subjective computer-generated temperatures increased from 0.00 to 1.20 C; or 0.28 C/decade, about 2.7 TIMES AS FAST

 

The temperature data by satellites and balloons are more accurate than land-based measurements.

See Appendix 2 and URL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

Satellite measurements are made many times during every day and systematically cover almost the entire world; +/- 85-degree latitude.

The satellite data is vastly more complete, and accurate than would be gathered by ground stations. (See Appendix 2) 

 

Balloon measurements, made on a sampling basis, are vastly less complete than satellite measurements, but they serve as a useful crosscheck on the satellite measurements. 

 

NOTE: Behind the 102 computer graphs are hundreds of organizations that likely receive a significant part of their revenues from governments and subsidy-receiving wind, solar, battery, etc., businesses.

The livelihood and career prospects of the people creating these graphs is more secure, if they aim high, rather than low.

https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2021/2/22/latest-computer-c...

 

A more detailed view of satellite temperatures.

APPENDIX 4

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and also a member of the CO2 Coalition. Sheahen and the Coalition are collaborating on a brief.

SEPP’s October 8 newsletter contains a summary of a major 2021 paper by Happer and co-author William van Wijngaarden that completely undermines the fake “science” the IPCC and EPA used to support the case of climate alarm. 

Sheahen specifically discusses the efforts of Professors William van Wijngaarden and William Happer in their pioneering work in calculating the real-world Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of the five most common Green-House Gases (GHGs).

Sheahan explains why the approach used by IPCC is faulty, but nonetheless used by its followers, such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the EPA.

These faulty methods lead to great exaggeration of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, methane, and other minor greenhouse gases. . . .

Sheahan shows the stunning agreement between the calculations of van Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) with satellite measurements (and balloon measurements) of outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the earth to space . . .

Sheahan claims, because of the exceptionally good agreement between observational data and the calculations of W & H, we can conclude the W&H model has been validated.

The W&H model embodies the scientific method.

In that case, it is reasonable to use it to study other hypothetical cases.

It is not possible to do so with IPCC models, which have never achieved agreement with observations. . . 

See Appendix 3

The gist of the H&W work is the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely saturated, such that any additional CO2 can have almost no additional warming effect.

Here is a chart prepared by Sheahan to illustrate the H&W results.

As atmospheric CO2 increases, say from 380 to 420 ppm, it has less warming effect.

The most warming effect occurs at very low levels of CO2, say 20 to 60 ppm.

Views: 118

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on August 19, 2022 at 10:14am

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service