ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Climate Change Reality Review for City State and National Leaders

Updated on May 11, 2019
Robert Kernodle profile image

I am a serious amateur who has been independently researching and writing about climate issues since 2009.

Current state of climate-change education photo compiled by Robert G. Kernodle
Current state of climate-change education photo compiled by Robert G. Kernodle

What Climate Change is Not

Accurate data exists from a variety of reliable, professional sources that indicate trends in the climates of various Earth regions. In looking at this data, it is important to remember that climate change is not an unusual phenomenon, but rather a phenomenon that has existed since Earth's beginning.

Today, many people speak of "climate change" as if human beings alone are the cause of it. This use of the phrase, however, is not what the phrase actually means. Climate has always changed, with or without human beings. Today's fashionable focus on humans has drifted in a direction that misuses the term. Consequently, the popular idea of "climate change" encourages uneducated, incorrect language that misrepresents the idea entirely.

Climate change is not what humans cause, but rather what happens with or without humans in the Earth-atmosphere system. The human focus alone, therefore, is egotistical on the part of humans who think that they are this much in control.

What the Data Says

We are routinely informed that temperatures are rising abnormally, that sea level is rising at an alarming rate, that droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires are surging to new heights of intensity, while ice is melting, and life as we know it is threatened in an unprecedented way.

Real-world, hands-on data reveals a different truth than this popularly-portrayed "truth".

Temperature

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (often abbreviated as GISS) provides the following Figure 1: Trend of global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean:

Source

This graph represents how much the whole Earth's temperature changed from its 1951-1980 average, over a hundred years.

Look at the left-hand side of the graph that shows the range of change. This range is measured in increments of 0.2 or two tenths of a degree.

Notice that, over more than a hundred years, the temperature of the whole Earth has remained within 0.8 or eight tenths of a degree. From 1880 to about 1933, the temperature of the whole Earth was cooler within 0.2 or two tenths of a degree, and from about 1933 to the present, the temperature of the whole Earth has been warmer within 0.5 or five tenths of a degree.

Tenths of a degree! The whole Earth! For over a hundred years! This is remarkably stable.

Temperature increments on this graph, while quite small in magnitude, are represented as quite large graphically. Twenty years on the bottom part of the graph is allotted the same space as 0.2 or two tenths of a degree on the left part of the graph. This gives the impression that a very small change in temperature, over a large number of years, is a big change.

The human body cannot even sense a tenth of a degree. We routinely live our lives comfortably within multiple whole degrees of temperature change. Tenths of degrees, therefore, mean nothing in our daily reality, and yet we are told by popular reports that tenths of degrees will be catastrophic for the Earth.

Why are we being told this? Ask yourself this question. Why are tenths of a degree being announced as huge risks for the planet? I will not speculate as to why. I simply ask the reader to consider this question seriously.

Then consider the following, more realistic representation of Earth's temperature over all these years:

Realistic, practical representation of the remarkable stability of global temperature over the past hundred or so years.
Realistic, practical representation of the remarkable stability of global temperature over the past hundred or so years. | Source

Sea Level

Popular accounts of climate change claim that sea levels are rising at an accelerating pace. Real-world data proves this claim false.

The fact is that sea level has always risen and fallen over the eons, and today's rising is nothing unusual, compared to what has always happened.

Sea level, thus, has been doing what it has been doing for quite some time, at the same rate, not at an accelerated rate, as shown by the following graph from the United States Environmental Protection Agency:

The steady rate of sea-level rise continues today, as it has since the year 1880, with no accelerating trend in sight.
The steady rate of sea-level rise continues today, as it has since the year 1880, with no accelerating trend in sight. | Source

Many factors can determine a particular region's sea-level rise. Any future projection of sea-level rise is quite small, at best, and , at worst, very uncertain, since any such projection is based on educated guesses inserted into climate models.

Real-world data shows positively zero alarming trend in sea-level rise.

Extreme Weather

Popular accounts frequently report that extreme weather events are becoming more intense and more frequent. Real-world data, however, reveals that this claim is false.

Hurricanes

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) clearly states,

"Once an estimate for likely missing storms is accounted for, the increase in tropical storms in the Atlantic since the late-19th Century is not distinguishable from no change."

In other words, the frequency of hurricanes has not increased in over a hundred years.

NOAA publishes a chart that clearly shows that, between 1950 and 2015, no increasing trend in Atlantic-hurricane intensity exists. A similar chart shows a similar zero-trend in the Pacific.


These two charts appear below, where the ACE Index refers to a standard scale for measuring hurricane intensity -- it stands for "Accumulated Cyclone Energy" (ACE).

The horizontal red line shows, first, no increasing trend in Atlantic hurricane intensity for at least the last sixty-five years and, second, no increasing trend in North Pacific Hurricanes for at least forty-five years:

No trend in Atlantic hurricanes for sixty-five years.
No trend in Atlantic hurricanes for sixty-five years.
No trend in Pacific hurricanes for forty-five years.
No trend in Pacific hurricanes for forty-five years.

As for the frequency of hurricanes, actual data clearly indicates that their frequency has gone downwards, not upwards the way popular reports claim.

More people than ever before might be experiencing hurricanes. More news channels than ever before might be reporting hurricanes. More property-development than ever before might be happening in hurricane-prone regions, thus leading to more humans than ever before being affected by hurricanes.

This is a population-growth phenomenon and a property-growth phenomenon, not a hurricane-growth phenomenon.


The number and intensity of hurricanes themselves has NOT increased. Rather, the number of human beings born (or living in a location long enough) to experience hurricanes has increased.

Consequently, the claim of "more frequent and intense hurricanes" has no foundation in real-world data.

Such a claim is based on future projections from improperly tuned climate models whose highly questionable outputs are being treated as a greater reality than reality itself.

Tornadoes

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association plainly states, "... there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years. "

At the time, data for this statement extended only to the year 2014. Since that time, as of this writing, extended to the year 2018, the trend has continued on a downward path, as indicated by the following graph:

The occurrence of tornadoes has followed a slight downward trend, since the year 1950.
The occurrence of tornadoes has followed a slight downward trend, since the year 1950.

As with hurricanes, the number of people alive to report tornadoes and to experience them has increased dramatically.

In addition, methods of detecting these storms have improved, as well as the number of instances that these storms are reported by a growing number of newscasts.

Further, people today share their hardships more than ever through social media and through a plethora of communication opportunities that never existed until recently.

Droughts

Widespread claims of increasing droughts appear regularly in the news. We even hear the phrase, "100-year drought", used in a factual sense for the current era.

Once again, however, real-world data does not support such claims.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes a chart that shows no trend in droughts for at least one-hundred-twenty-five years in the contiguous forty-eight states of America:

The United States has had zero trend in droughts since the year 1890.
The United States has had zero trend in droughts since the year 1890.

An even broader examination of global events shows that droughts have been much more severe in the past:

Global droughts have been much more severe in the past.
Global droughts have been much more severe in the past.
There has been little change during the past sixty years.
There has been little change during the past sixty years.

Responsible news outlets and national organizations seem very uneducated in these facts.

Policies based on a lack of diligence in researching these facts are equally uninformed, where the public good is concerned.

Wildfires

Disaster stories make highly sought after news. Consequently, occurrences of California wildfires, over the two years before this article was written, spawned numerous alarming stories about wildfires increasing, due to climate change.

As before, this alarming claim does not stand up to real-world data for either North America or for the entire globe:

Failure to seek out this important information, before enacting relevant laws, leads to a misdirection of human resources. Mistakenly equating more disaster stories to more actual disasters is an immature approach to turning information into practical action.

City, state, and national leaders need to research cold hard facts, before bending to the whims of popular opinion or to the appeal of popular mass news reporting.

Educators are teaching lessons to students of all ages, without a proper foundation in facts, which means, from childhood to adulthood, citizens are being led down the same dark road of misinformation as government leaders who help insure their futures.

Update Made on 4-13-2019

Here are a couple more charts showing hurricane numbers and frequency, starting in 1851.

Notice the lack of any significant trend in this longer interval, as well.

Chart based on NOAA data.
Chart based on NOAA data.
Chart based on NOAA data.
Chart based on NOAA data.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • profile image

      CD Marshall 

      2 months ago

      Happy 4th of July to all of you regardless of where you live. I'll be adding to the CO2 with hotdogs, burgers, and baked beans all cooked on the grill. Tomorrow I'll be adding to the methane levels because of the hot dogs, burgers and baked beans.

      Doc and Scott enjoy tomorrow, relax, have a little fun and just think of all those political and media types cooking out on grills as they float across the water on huge yachts (like Leonardo DiCaprio,Laurence Powell Jobs and Brian Sheth) or fly to a special place in a Jet (like Al Gore and best buds George Soros) to celebrate National Grill up the CO2 Day and then condemn everyone else for doing it the next day with the self righteous indignation that only a political/media liberal has perfected.

      All joking aside you two have a good one tomorrow.

    • profile image

      CD Marshall 

      2 months ago

      I stand corrected, Bush could be considered conservative. However, Kennedy also believed in tax cuts to create more jobs so even he could have been considered conservative.

      Further on my OH lesson, When OH and CH4 react and break down, the end result of that reaction (when joined) with NO or NO2 reform OH. So OH recycles back into the atmosphere. I'm sure you already knew that too.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      2 months ago

      Top 10 Greatest Presidents from a conservative point of view.

      1. George Washington (1789-1797): After leading the Continental Army to victory in the American Revolution, Washington was instrumental in setting the United States on a course of liberty and limited government. By eschewing attempts to make him a monarch, Washington ensured the American experiment would indeed be democratic. His words, “The Constitution is the guide, which I never will abandon,” should be the motto of every U.S. President.

      2. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989): Reagan stared down the Soviet Union, bringing the Cold War to an end at long last. He championed free markets and limited government, and his across-the-board tax cuts breathed new life into a faltering economy. The Gipper’s constant reminder that the United States was a “shining city on a hill” gave rebirth to the notion of American exceptionalism.

      3. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865): Conservatives may not like his suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War or his disregard of states’ rights, but preserving the Union warrants Lincoln’s inclusion on this list. Few have been as eloquent as Lincoln when he said at the hallowed ground of Gettysburg, “That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”

      4. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929): “Silent Cal” presided over a booming economy as he slashed income and corporate taxes, limited regulations on private business, and retired a major part of the national debt. He once astutely said, “Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It doesn’t appear to belong to anybody,” and his presidency was a testimony to that philosophy of government thrift.

      5. Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897): Cleveland was a pro-business Democrat who supported lower tariffs and battled government corruption, patronage, and high taxes. He broke the Pullman Strike of 1894, which was threatening to paralyze the nation’s transportation system. He vetoed 584 bills in his eight years mostly to cut excessive spending, yet had only seven vetoes overridden.

      6. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961): America’s postwar economy boomed during the Eisenhower presidency. Ike stood firm in opposition to the menace posed by the Soviet Union and repeatedly warned against deficit spending. After two decades of turmoil marked by the Depression and war, the Eisenhower Era of peace and prosperity was just the tonic America needed to emerge as a global superpower. The building of the interstate highway system is one of the few massive federal projects that conservatives can applaud.

      7. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809): Jefferson served the country better before he became President as author of the Declaration of Independence. His troubled second term left the nation’s military unprepared for the ensuing battle with the British in the War of 1812. But he favored states’ rights and a limited federal government, repealed many federal taxes, and was a fierce opponent of government debt. If a tenet of conservatism is getting the best bang for the taxpayers’ buck, then Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase qualifies as one of history’s great bargains.

      8. James Monroe (1817-1825): The Monroe Doctrine in 1823 was a warning to the European powers to stay out of the New World and it kept the United States from becoming involved in foreign entanglements for most of the rest of the century. Monroe opposed excessive government spending and vetoed a bill to make repairs on the national Cumberland Road, saying that “Congress does not possess the power under the Constitution to pass such a law.”

      9. Harry Truman (1945-1953): Truman brought a swift end to World War II by approving the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and then navigated the Marshall Plan, which helped to rebuild Europe. He started the transition from a wartime economy and stood firm against the threat of communism.

      10. George W. Bush (2001-2009): He certainly has a mixed record by allowing spending to soar, but conservatives can applaud the Bush tax cuts, Supreme Court nominees, and strong response to 9/11.

      B:

      In my opinion his response to 911 was pathetic and misplaced.

      And it was his presidency when the US economy failed.

    • profile image

      CD Marshall 

      2 months ago

      Yes now the climate clowns are moving to the three D's remember that is their hail marry when all else fails: Deny-Deflect-Discredit.

      Reagan was the most conservative president we have ever had. The Bush era have never been extremely conservative. We really haven't had a great deal of conservative presidents I think Kennedy was the last Democrat with conservative ideas and Reagan the last Republican.

      OH does not break down CH4 into CO2 in the atmosphere, CH4 is a hydrocarbon. In order for that to happen combustion would have to be involved and at an appropriate heat for the reaction to take place and break down CH4 into CO2 and H2O respectively.

      The atmosphere is not combustible last time I checked.

      Again no proof exists in the scientific field that CO2 raises temperature. Yes fabrications have been invented sure but no actual proof. As I said 2 ice ages 4000 and 7000 ppm. Many warming periods and cooling periods equal and or greater than today.

      If you like I'll be happy to discuss what IPCC scientists felt about the hockey stick fiasco? Not that I'm in the hopes of you learning anything, you're solipsism-like grounding in the CO2 religion is odd at best.

      Absolutely no evidence would sway you that CO2 is not the driver of climate and that is not science, it is emotional belief formed into a pseud-science. The data has to support the emotions not the facts in this case, a epistemological view if you will. Big Oil is evil (in your mind) therefore CO2 in the atmosphere (even though Big Oil doesn't produce that ) is also evil.

      You don't need scientific verification, you need a good long vacation.

      Cheers!

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      ""CO2 is not trapping heat. Don't believe me just ask your fire extinguisher next time you use it if it's making that fire worse."" ---

      I am rolling on the floor laughing my ass off at that unbelievably ridiculous assertion.

      "I don't think we do know or CAN know what the temperature trends of the past really were, " - I AM afraid only you don't know these trends. Scientists do.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I see, Doc, that CD can be disregarded as having nothing substantive or useful to add to this conversation - he is just a flame-thrower without any foundation in fact. Amazing, G.W. Bush a RINO, one of the most conservative presidents in history. Does that make CD a fascist? That is the next step to the right, isn't it?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Will, you said "I didn't bring up anyone."

      True, but you did bring up the topic of immigration in connection to Angela Merkel, and that is what I referred to.

      CD:

      Gosh, what a tiresome Gish gallop!

      Yes, we all emit CO2 (and other GHGs) by virtue of participation in this society.

      Yes, I know that CH4 breaks down in the atmosphere. There are a couple of pathways for it (and the residence time is more complicated than you are letting on) but it ends up producing CO2 at the end of all those pathways.

      "At 15 microns in a freezing cold nitrogen atmosphere it would create radiative cooling and nothing more."

      The point is that CO2 absorbs thermal radiation at a number of frequencies, partially depending on pressure. Most of the time, the energy absorbed is transferred via collision to other molecules--usually nitrogen ones, obviously. This raises the temperature, since heat is essentially just kinetic energy on the molecular scale.

      "Of all the heat absorption gases in the atmosphere CO2 is by far the least. "

      Just wrong, my friend.

      Releases of heat via phase change ("it rains") are irrelevant to what CO2 does or does not do--and, for that matter, irrelevant to what water vapor does as a GHG when it is not changing phase.

      "CO2 is not trapping heat. Don't believe me just ask your fire extinguisher next time you use it if it's making that fire worse."

      I could get all smart alecky here about how it traps heat and puts out the fire, but I'd be kidding; presumably, we all know that CO2 fire extinguishers work by displacing oxygen and thereby rendering the oxidation process impossible, or at least slowing it enough that insufficient heat is produced to continue combustion.

      Still, it's tempting, because your argument is frankly just so silly. (How nice would it be if you could ask your fire extinguisher a question and receive an answer, anyway?) But none of this has anything to do with how CO2 affects radiation in the atmosphere.

      I'll just remake one point I've been hammering on: science thoroughly understands the physics of radiation in the atmosphere, including the roles of GHGs. If it didn't, it metereologists would not be able to produce skillful forecasts of daily temperatures. Nowadays, the 24-hour forecast high is most often within a degree or two, for instance.

    • profile image

      CD Msrshall 

      2 months ago

      You know who puts up CO2 in the air? You do, your cars do, your power plants do and so on. Please this argument is really fallible. I was making a general statement of fact. CARBON IS LIFE.

      Anyway CH4 has a residency of 1-4 years in the atmosphere and is naturally broken down by OH. You at least know that I hope.

      I'm glad you mentioned radiative warming and cooling because that was my point with CO2 in the atmosphere all along. At 15 microns in a freezing cold nitrogen atmosphere it would create radiative cooling and nothing more. Of all the heat absorption gases in the atmosphere CO2 is by far the least. What does water vapor do (which also absorbs in the similar micron range) when it rises in the atmosphere? We all know it rains and creates radiative cooling. CO2 is not trapping heat. Don't believe me just ask your fire extinguisher next time you use it if it's making that fire worse.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      2 months ago

      ["... most climate “hockey sticks” are the result of the improper integration of high resolution instrumental data and lower resolution proxy data . Many of these hockey sticks appear to have been the result of a careless, if not reckless, disregard of basic signal processing principles."]

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/25/resolution-...

      ["... every method of estimating pre-industrial CO2 levels, apart from Antarctic ice cores, indicate that Late Quaternary CO2 levels were frequently in the 300-350 ppmv range and possibly occasionally over 400 ppmv."]

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/02/resolution-...

      de·mon·ize -- portray as wicked and threatening

      CO2 today is portrayed as wicked and threatening, hence CO2 is demonized.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I didn't bring up anyone.

      I simply responded to the list of 'conservatives' who embrace AGW by noting that they are conservatives in name only, and pointed out that Merkel flooded Germany with Muslims, not exactly a conservative, merit-based position on immigration.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, yes, there is complexity and to some degree uncertainty. That's another reason that I, for one, do not use the term "settled" unless it's active in a discussion. However, in my opinion, the big picture is more than clear enough to justify serious action. You will disagree, I'm sure, but I've done a ton of homework on this matter, too.

      Will, when you start slinging names around, you may find that people become less inclined to overlook your own slipups, however minor--and especially when they amuse. And we all slip up from time to time.

      Since you bring up Merkel on immigration, I would suggest that her stand on the matter wasn't based on political expediency--if it had been, it might have justified dissing her political smarts, at least. It was based, I suspect, on her Christian convictions:

      "Angela Merkel is a Lutheran member of the Evangelical Church in Berlin, Brandenburg and Silesian Upper Lusatia..."

      ""In 2012, Merkel said, regarding her faith: "I am a member of the evangelical church. I believe in God and religion is also my constant companion, and has been for the whole of my life. We as Christians should above all not be afraid of standing up for our beliefs." She also publicly declared that Germany suffers not from "too much Islam" but "too little Christianity"."

      After all, Christ is reported to have put these words in the mouths of the redeemed in one of his famous parables:

      "Lord, and when did we see you a stranger, and took you in?" (Matt 25:38)

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      'It's also amusing that you call Merkel a "moron." (Especially when you misspelled it "Merkle".)'

      And it's amusing that you omitted WHY I said she's a moron and then sank to the level of noting a minor misspelling.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      2 months ago

      Doc,

      The link you provided to Greenland temp reconstructions indicates to me that the making of these reconstructions is somewhat of an art form, and this whole argument comes down to whose art is better. As we know, of course, art is art, and its aesthetic appeal is in the eye of the beholder.

      I don't think we do know or CAN know what the temperature trends of the past really were, nor can we know what those of the future will be with any settled certainty. The level of uncertainty in all this is what keeps the argument going and the dueling graphs in play.

      There are experts who will call BS on the graphs you cite, as you call graphs that I cite BS.

      I'd say the fact that we can carry on as we do proves that nothing really is "settled". People who are skeptics are NOT using such characterizations as "settled", which indicates to me that people who are alarmed about climate change are coming at it emotionally, instead of rationally.

      One graph does not negate all that I have said -- it is one interpretation of what we think we know about the past, compared to another interpretation.

      Hockey-stick style graphs can result from some underhanded ways of dealing with data -- "tricks" that are beyond my technical understanding. I wish I could speak from such technical knowledge, but I don't have it, and so I can't, but I can find a source that can.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "Doc and Scott provide a long list of known leftist RINO's, two very liberal Justices and Angela Merkle, the leftist moron who flooded Germany with Muslims, and expect me to retract? On the contrary, they just reinforced my point."

      And you just proved how extremist your own political views are, or perhaps how badly you have lost all perspective.

      It's also amusing that you call Merkel a "moron." (Especially when you misspelled it "Merkle".) Get back to me on that when you've run a major industrial economy for 15 years, winning 4 elections, and presiding over robust economic growth most of that time. Or when you get your PhD in quantum chemistry, for that matter.

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

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      CD said: "...oil companies who have not put one ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere..."

      Now, that is just laughable. Maybe you don't know about flaring methane, or about methane leaks, or about the fact that CH4 is a powerful GHG, or that it ends up, eventually, as CO2. But surely you can't be unaware that oil companies are entities that actually de-sequester fossil carbon from the earth for the purpose of burning it? Or that they knew in the 1970s that this would be problematic, but chose to lie to the public about it?

      Well, you did say it was "amusing."

      Here's the truth about the Strong quote:

      "[It was] a fictional account which was clearly stated to be an extreme scenario of what might happen by the year 2030 if we failed to act. This specifically stated that it was not a prediction, and certainly not a recommendation, but the kind of prospect we must seek to avoid."

      https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Maurice_Stro...

      The fact that Mr. Strong spent his entire career as a prominent 'mover and shaker' *within* "technological civilization*--for instance, as head of Ontario Hydro, one of the largest utilities in North America--provides good evidence against the claim that you repeat so cavalierly. Why would anyone call for the destruction of their life's work?

      Of course Glenn Beck, the one who puffed this particular claim, is not exactly immaculate in his care for the truth.

      Your claim that Maurice Strong single-handedly walked into the UN one day and somehow persuaded them that climate change due to CO2 was dangerous is simply ludicrous--almost as ludicrous as the idea that no scientist was involved.

      You are also wrong on multiple fronts about Kyoto. Least significantly, it was signed not by Al Gore--though he was active in the negotiations--but by President Clinton. (Why would a veep sign?)

      Most significantly, it didn't (and doesn't) "ration energy production." What it does is set emissions targets for participating (developed) nations, many of whom have met those targets without crippling their economies. "According to Olivier et al. (2011) the Kyoto Parties will comfortably exceed their collective target, with a projected average reduction of 16% for 2008–2012."

      Your tirade presuming that only you know that carbon is a building block of life is just silly. It's irrelevant that carbon is essential to like, and nobody, despite Will's claim, is "demonizing" carbon, or, as you said, "hating" or trying to "remove" it from the planet. Prominently missing from the list of things made in significant of carbon is that atmosphere. And rightly so, since the atmosphere is 80% nitrogen--another common and necessary element which can be a pollutant:

      https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/issue

      Most of the rest is oxygen, with some argon and trace gases such as--yes--CO2.

      It is precisely because there is little CO2 by proportion in the air that human activity has been able to increase the total by over 45%.

      And while you may choose not to try to understand the voluminous scientific evidence leading to the conclusion that atmospheric CO2 and water vapor (along with several other, rarer gases) have very significant effects on the planet's energy balance, that does not mean that that evidence does not exist, nor that the conclusion is incorrect.

      As I pointed out earlier, the physics is quantitatively validated every time your local weatherperson correctly predicts the daily high and low, because that can't be done without a thorough, detailed understanding of radiative cooling and warming.

      So, when you say "it's not happening in the real applied world of science," you are 180 degrees from the truth.

    • profile image

      CD Marshall 

      2 months ago

      I find it amusing how you guys on the left and rhinos who are just right of left, attack oil companies who have not put one ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and then claim what you're doing isn't political. The IPCC was founded as a political weapon.

      “In order to save the planet, Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?" -Maurice Strong

      Maurice Strong walked into the UN claiming climate change was real threat and they had to do something about it. Thus the IPCC was born. Not one scientist proved this outlandish claim.

      As regards to Kyoto, Japan I'm sure you know In December 1997, then U. S. Vice-President Al Gore participated in a meeting in Kyoto, Japan during which he signed a treaty to ration world energy production based upon fear of human-caused global warming. This treaty was not, however, presented to the United States Senate for ratification and not one scientist was involved...and yet you think it wasn't politics? Climate Clowns are a jovial lot aren't they?

      CO2 is not a pollutant that's the most ignorant thing I may have ever heard. Just about everything on this planet is made from carbon including you. Carbon will last longer than the Earth and no doubt be the building blocks of another planet at some point. Carbon is life get used to it. Hating carbon is literally hating yourself. What is carbon? Everything. Humans, animals, plants, trees, the ground and in the oceans. You will never remove carbon from this planet. Get used to it.

      I said I'd keep driving it home so I will, no proof exists that CO2 drives temperature increase. Cry about it all you want it's not happening in the real applied world of science.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Doc and Scott provide a long list of known leftist RINO's, two very liberal Justices and Angela Merkle, the leftist moron who flooded Germany with Muslims, and expect me to retract? On the contrary, they just reinforced my point.

      BTW, this is typical. Liberals think the rest of us are stupid and gullible. Of course that's why they are pushing the fraud of AGW.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      And this, from Doc, bears repeating in a little more detail:

      However, the same is not true of

      * George Schultz - R

      * the late John McCain - R

      * LIndsey Graham R

      * Bob Ingalls R

      * the climate activist and scientist James Hansen who used to be) a registered Republican

      * George H.W. Bush, whose State Department negotiated the Kyoto Protocol.- R

      * George W. Bush, who supported action on climate change in theory, though not in practice. ("My administration is commit - R

      * Margaret Thatcher - a conservative

      * Angela Merkel, a center-right politician. (It was she who turfed out the Socialists from power in Germany, if you recall.)

      WHY Will are all these obviously non-Left people disagreeing with you??? Sort of puts gaping holes in you misinformed position, doesn't it?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Of course, Will, "The progressive-socialist left started demonizing co2 in the 1980's because all other attempts to cripple the cheap fossil fuel energy that drives capitalism's successes had failed." IS SO MUCH Right-Wing BS and you know it.

      People, especially scientists not paid by the fossil fuel industry, with a brain started, before the 1980s, recognizing the harm too much CO2 (and other GHG) in the air will do to the earth if the accumulation of it gets too great. They recognized something must be done soon to stop any harm.

      You and those like you yelled bloody murder making all sorts of wild claims in opposition. You were successful. Which leaves us today paying the price for that stupidity and trying to prevent true catastrophe. A catastrophe you are all to willing to live with and visit on your progeny.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "The benign gas we exhale with every breath and the gas that makes our sodas fizz is now listed as a pollutant by EPA zealots and upheld by the liberals in the SCOTUS."

      Yes--prejudicial language aside. That, however, doesn't mean it has been "demonized." Nitrogen and phosphorus are also listed as pollutants, and people buy them all the time to fertilize plants with. Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for humans, and nitrogen comprises about 80% of our atmosphere. But when they are released into bodies of water in excessive amounts, they can kick off a process called "eutrophication", which can turn a clean lake or river into scummy, disgusting mess nearly devoid of oxygen in which no fish can live.

      So, there are other pollutants besides CO2 which are benign and even necessary, yet which when oversupplied cause terrible problems.

      And, as an aside, note that: 1) both Justice Stevens--a registered Republican--and Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee concurred with the so-called "liberals" in upholding the plaintiff's view in Massachusetts v. EPA, and 2) far from the finding being initiated by "EPA zealots," the force of the ruling was in fact to compel the EPA's administrator to act.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Env...

      "Almost all AGW zealots are over on the left. That includes you and your Trump bashing."

      Yes, I am on the left and proud of it. And yes, I think Trump is a disaster on multiple fronts--first and foremost, his damaging policies on climate.

      However, the same is not true of George Schultz, or the late John McCain, or LIndsey Graham, or Bob Ingalls, or even, for that matter, the climate activist and scientist James Hansen, who is (or used to be) a registered Republican. It wasn't true of George H.W. Bush, whose State Department negotiated the Kyoto Protocol. It wasn't even true of George W. Bush, who supported action on climate change in theory, though not in practice. ("My administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change.") It wasn't true of Margaret Thatcher. And it isn't true of Angela Merkel, who is, after all, a center-right politician. (It was she who turfed out the Socialists from power in Germany, if you recall.)

      I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

      It is not that socialists and progressives are the only ones who accept the mainstream science and take a realistic position on climate change; it is that the Republican Party has chosen to make itself the vehicle of climate change denial--even if it meant denying not only climate change but its own past, and some of its leading figures past and even to some extent present.

      I don't know of any case quite parallel to this in any other country. It's true that quite often the left around the world is relatively *more* worried about climate change, on average, than is the right (though there are exceptions to that, too). But I can't think of another conservative party that is as extreme as the GOP here in the good old USA. Not Australia's "Liberal" Party--yes, they're small-C conservatives--not Canada's Conservative/Reform parties; not the UK's Conservatives; and certainly not Germany's Christian Democratic Union (which Merkel led to 4 consecutive electoral victories).

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Uh, Robert, there are a few problems with your 'recent geologic history' graph. First, you can't derive an "approximate global temperature anomaly" from a single ice core record from the summit of the Greenland ice cap. The oxygen isotope levels are sensitive only to local temperatures, not global ones. So your graph of 'global temps', isn't. It probably doesn't reflect the full modern warming, either. See this:

      https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/03/06/fact-check-g...

      Second, the scale and data range of your CO2 graph don't do justice to the current reality, or to the glacial/interglacial cycles, for that matter: you've just got the very stable CO2 levels from about 11,000 years ago to about 200 years ago. During that time, CO2 changed very little, essentially riding between 260-280 ppm, or a variation of +/- 5%. So there was very little forcing from CO2 changes during that time.

      But bring in the current CO2 level, and the picture changes dramatically. Here's the graph I made of it:

      https://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h402/brassdoc...

      Analogously, if you go much further back in time than you did, then you start to see CO2 levels plummet down to 180 ppm or so, showing a very nice correlation with global temperatures during the last glaciation.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "No, Will, no-one has been "demonizing" CO2."

      Hogwash. The benign gas we exhale with every breath and the gas that makes our sodas fizz is now listed as a pollutant by EPA zealots and upheld by the liberals in the SCOTUS.

      "This isn't a "progressive-socialist" issue"

      Hogwash. Almost all AGW zealots are over on the left. That includes you and your Trump bashing.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      No, Will, no-one has been "demonizing" CO2. However, wide and deep research has shown that its level in the atmosphere is in a way analogous to hormone levels in the human body: correct functioning requires reasonable stability.

      With an increase of over 45% now clocked in, humanity has thrown stability out the metaphorical window.

      This isn't a "progressive-socialist" issue: I can show you progressive socialist climate change deniers and I can show you conservatives who are climate activists. It's a question of looking at evidence with the sincere desire to understand it, and find the truth.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The progressive-socialist left started demonizing co2 in the 1980's because all other attempts to cripple the cheap fossil fuel energy that drives capitalism's successes had failed.

      Co2 increases have never preceded warming in Earth's long history, but we are now supposed to believe that co2 is not just a greenhouse gas, but a greenhouse gas so dangerous that US capitalism must be restricted by an international governing body (the UN and its IPCC).

      The left then succeeded in getting harmless co2 declared a dangerous pollutant by the EPA and the leftists in the SCOTUS upheld it as law!

      It's no accident that all of this is being driven by the left in America and their international-socialist cousins. That's why they angrily declare the science settled and viciously attack skeptical scientists, even going so far as calling for putting skeptics in prison.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      2 months ago

      Scott B also might want to consider a closer look at a more recent geological time scale. I used the graph presented at:

      http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20Temperat...

      ... making some further notations, to clearly indicate the relationship between temperature and CO2:

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/2kpxu4e2q85jysj/CO2NoTem...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      2 months ago

      Scott and his buds are only output devices, much like a DVD player.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      2 months ago

      Scott B said that I was so wrong that it was unbelievable and that I showed no data to support my statement. Scott apparently did not bother clicking on the link that I provided to a chart supporting my statement. If he did, then I fear that he does not know how to interpret this chart, whose source is clearly indicated.

      The chart has a purple line for CO2 and a blue line for temperature. To help Scott study this chart, I added some red lines to show his span of 3 million years and to show periods during the geological past BEFORE this 3 million years where CO2 and temperature are clearly out of sync in the opposite directions, AND where CO2 and temperature are most assuredly higher by many orders.

      Here's a link to that chart again, with my notations:

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/jfrq7u1gujt46lz/CO2-Temp...

      Scott also concludes that I have not researched global warming. I would like to assure him that I have spent the last nine years researching and writing about it.

      Also,evidence in favor of the Sun's coming up is on a much higher level than what climate "scientists" call "evidence". Equating those standards of evidence is simply laughable.

    • profile image

      CD Marshall 

      2 months ago

      Scott Belford,

      Hanging desperately on to the notion that CO2 is causing warming is like still claiming the Earth is flat. Seriously, at this point it's almost sad to still cling to that outdated pseudoscience.

      Nothing in the atmosphere traps heat, even clouds don't behave that way. Clouds on the warm ground won't absorb heat they still act as a coolant, you may know them better by their more common name, fog.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      2 months ago from now on

      Recent articles in First Things,1 The Week,2 and New Scientist3 present evidence that warrants the conclusion that flawed scientific research results are widespread!

      https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/is-sc...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      2 months ago

      What government agency has ever been truthful, and what have they done for the US, and the people. Not much.

      911 showed us the government agencies that get trillions of dollars over time, couldn't even outwit 19 low tech, low budget terrorist. It was a repeat of Pearl Harbor showing that they didn't learn anything from it.

      At Pearl Harbor there was at least some return fire on the enemy, but on 911 not a single shot was fired. It also showed that Andrews Air Force base is useless and is just a taxi service for government officials.

      Also, government investigations don't find the truth, they hide the truth.

      So, if one wants to talk about lies, it has always been in the government agencies which are not really under any politicians control.

      The government couldn't even get the food pyramid right.

      They couldn't keep track of WMD in Iraq anymore than tracking UFOs.

      They now need private industry for their space projects, and that probably eliminated the $600 screwdriver.

      NOOA isn't really where we should look to find answers, just more questions.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Boy, CD, you can lie almost as good as Trump does with "You mean like this fact: "starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate-measuring stations in cooler locations around the world."

      It is a lie because you KNOW that isn't true. How do I know you know that isn't true? Because you aren't the dumbest person on earth.

    • profile image

      Neil Armstrong 

      2 months ago

      Wow Scott Belford really doesn't understand basic science! As if people like him still exist in this day and age with ready access to information. I guess these troglodytes (lol) just never learned how to think. Sad.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Just for Scott, since he does not understand how science works:

      "All scientific theories are based on a series of assumptions, and the standard scientific method of proving that theory is by vigorously setting out to disprove it. Science itself is based on encouraging that healthy skepticism, so when we hear that the man-caused global warming science is 'settled' and anyone daring to question it is attacked as a denier, we know that it is not settled at all and that it is, by definition, not science at all."

    • profile image

      CD Marshall 

      2 months ago

      You mean like this fact: "starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate-measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures drove up the average measured temperature. The stations eliminated were in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea and more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500."

      Just showing the temps that produce the island effect to create a warming trend is fraud.

      "For example, land-based temperatures have been rising while satellite-based measures haven’t shown the same increase since 1990. Their answer is that at that point in time, the elimination of weather stations produced a false measured increase in temperatures that didn’t affect the satellite readings."

      -Washington Times.

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/m...

      "A New Temperature Reconstruction from Central Asia Shows 432 Years of No Warming, Recent Cooling"

      https://notrickszone.com/2019/05/02/a-new-temperat...

      These reports are a dime a dozen but my point is valid. No proof CO2 raises temperature in the atmosphere. The Urban Island Effect can create misleading higher temperatures especially if you remove any stations showing cooling!

      They just lied a few weeks ago about New Delhi being the hottest on record. They just lied about France reaching highest record when the temperature gauge was on a roof and it still didn't break the oldest record. No we just know that the correlation between CO2 and heat is false, as I said Minoan, Roman and Midieval were warmer than today and a severe cooling period happened right before the MWP and an mini-ice age happened right after.

      Antarctica was ice free at one point and was part of the trade route, probably by the Phoenicians and Cretans, who were excellent sailors.

      Just as NOAA covered up undesired data Callendar covered up undesired CO2 data that would disprove his theory. That is why his works were dismissed by his peers. You've all seen his charts I'm sure.

      The Fonselius et al 1956 showed CO2 increasing in the Summer and Winter, decreasing in the Spring and really decreasing in the Autumn.

      That does not show a trend with just heat and CO2. That shows even in cold CO2 is high just like the Ice Ages I referred to. We all know why CO2 rises after a warming period; I find it fascinating that it also rises in colder temperatures.

      At this point you are just blowing CO2 bubbles, we don't deny climate change we however, know CO2 is not the driver. As sure as I know the Sun is the driver of our climate and that politics has taken over the climate clown brigade.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      It is NOT settled that the Sun will come up tomorrow because it is JUST a probability. BUT, all evidence points to the Sun NOT going supernova tonight so the probability the Sun comes up tomorrow is extremely high.

      The same thing is TRUE about man-made GHG increases in the atmosphere since around 1880 - all evidence points to this FACT. The science of excess GHG causing increased global temperature is a physical fact that is not open to interpretation. It is as certain as F=MA no matter how much you deniers want to deny it.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Just for Scott, since he does not understand how science works:

      "All scientific theories are based on a series of assumptions, and the standard scientific method of proving that theory is by vigorously setting out to disprove it. Science itself is based on encouraging that healthy skepticism, so when we hear that the man-caused global warming science is 'settled' and anyone daring to question it is attacked as a denier, we know that it is not settled at all and that it is, by definition, not science at all."

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Clearly you have not researched global warming, otherwise you wouldn't have said "The premise of CO2-greenhouse-heating-of-Earth's-atmosphere cannot withstand real-world observations. The physical principles of heat transfer, when properly applied, do not even allow it theoretically.".

      IF you had actually researched global warming, you would have found this - https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/ (I kept it simple for you)

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      The point in time that you choose -- three million years ago -- happens to be the lowest point CO2 reached in the span of Earth's entire geological existence." says Robert.

      BUT Robert is so wrong, it is unbelievable. Moreover, he cannot produce data to support his false statement because it doesn't exist. Also, I didn't choose any point in time. That is when my research says was the last time in earth's history when there has been this much CO2 in the air.

      When he also says."As I see the evidence, there is no such thing as a "normal level of CO2", he is 'technically' correct, but he is also sharpshooting, isn't he. The fact is, a 'normal' level of CO2 is the average of the range of values between the max and min experienced while CO2 and global average temperatures were relatively stable, i.e, the last 800,000 years.

      He is also very wrong when he says there is no relationship between CO2 levels average global temperature (AGT). IN FACT, there is a very strong one based on simple, back of the envelope regression.

      It is AGT = 4.811673337 degrees C + 0.025186409 * CO2 level in ppm. R2 = .967004 (That figure tells you the data points are NOT all over the place.)

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      2 months ago

      Will

      I totally agree.

      The Big Bang Theory is just the latest theory and as science learns more we improve the theory, but it is still a theory. And as you said it applies to all theories.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      All scientific theories are based on a series of assumptions, and the standard scientific method of proving that theory is by vigorously setting out to disprove it. Science itself is based on encouraging that healthy skepticism, so when we hear that the man-caused global warming science is 'settled' and anyone daring to question it is attacked as a denier, we know that it is not settled at all and that it is, by definition, not science at all.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      2 months ago

      The claim that "the role of CO2 in mediating temperature is well-understood, and flows from 200 years of observational and experimental work" is tricky. If by "understood", a person means "understood INCORRECTLY", then this would be true. An arguably incorrect understanding is an understanding of sorts.

      Furthermore, an incorrect understanding can be strengthened by how the methods of this misunderstanding define "observational and experimental work". If observations are narrowly analyzed, then incorrect biases can emerge and further support an incorrect model. If "experimental work" is deficient in its scope, then wrong conclusions can emerge that further support an incorrect, underlying model.

      The premise of CO2-greenhouse-heating-of-Earth's-atmosphere cannot withstand real-world observations. The physical principles of heat transfer, when properly applied, do not even allow it theoretically.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      2 months ago from now on

      CD, you nailed it. What’s in poor taste is Sno’s pretending to be a “doc”.

    • profile image

      CD MARSHALL 

      2 months ago

      Wow you sound like you're in a mood swing yourself showing that self-righteous indignation common of stuffed shirts and pious liberals. Get over yourself Humpty Dumpty or have a great fall. The Obama era is over. Did I offend you? Good. You'll never run out of emotions so discard them quickly and keep updating the source code.

      Anyway you have successfully avoided my points in every response, much like you have avoided Robert's counterpoints, congratulations. Change your name to Doc Clown and start a roadshow. I'd buy a ticket.

      Back on point, no proof exists that CO2 drives temperature increase. From now on I will just repeat that until it sinks in.

      ...Deep.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      CD, Callendar knew that CO2 levels vary. Your boys confirmed that. Charles Keeling found the same thing, and lo and behold! We observe the same thing today at Mauna Loa and all the other 20 or so CO2 observatories around the world.

      You're not telling us anything new.

      And the role of CO2 in mediating temperature is well-understood, and flows from 200 years of observational and experimental work. You may wish to deny it, but that won't make it go away.

      "The Earth goes through temperature swings, she is considered female so mood swings shouldn't be a surprise to anyone."

      A remark in surprisingly poor taste, just FYI.

    • profile image

      CD Marshall 

      2 months ago

      Callendar carefully truncated his CO2 results for a desired outcome. Callendar's work was rejected by his peers. I have a copy of Callendar's original CO2 levels before he changed them. Blotchy hard to read as it is. it shows high as 600 and low as 250 all removed.

      In 1956 his work was reviewed and tested by Stig Fonselius, Folke Koroleff, and Karl-Erik Warme. The title was "Carbon Dioxide Variations in the Atmospshere."

      They found variations in the atmosphere from regional to seasonal a fact omitted by the current CO2 'levels'. You know what else they found? Temperature played no impact in the CO2 levels rising but did play an impact in the lowering and raising of CO2.

      In one year from 10 stations CO2 levels rose to 347 and lowered to 319 and NOT at the same time, proving CO2 is not a well mixed and certainly not a 'bonding' gas. Like gas works as a solid or a liquid in the first place?

      Anyway since glacial ice ages have been in very high CO2 levels the correlation between the trace gas and temperature doesn't exist.

      The Earth goes through temperature swings, she is considered female so mood swings shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

      "If the planet is warming and it's not CO2 than what is it?" The sad part is most climate scientists don't seem to be finding that part out do they?

      They stop at CO2 and, since they stop at that, their integrity as a scientist also stops there.

      Ladies, gentlemen. stoics, amateurs, experts, scientists it's time to drop the politics and get real about our climate.

      If we a re headed for a warming period like the Minoan, Roman and Midieval Age why aren't we preparing for it instead of playing which monkey has the best grant money and which one gets mentioned the most in media?

      If the opposite is happening and we are headed for another extreme cooling period, a mini ice age or a full blown out glacial ice age why aren't we preparing for that as well? Megadroughts and/or extreme cold will both wipe out a huge part of this population and without proper preparedness it is a guarantee. Those monopolizing on weather right now have no guarantee they will survive the change either.

      So in short, what are these climate clowns thinking?

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      2 months ago

      Scott B,

      As I see the evidence, there is no such thing as a "normal level of CO2".

      The point in time that you choose -- three million years ago -- happens to be the lowest point CO2 reached in the span of Earth's entire geological existence. The fact that CO2 has remained near this geological low for three million years does NOT make this "normal". In fact, it would appear to be abnormally low, compared to preceding periods, where, say, at 146 million years ago, CO2 levels were over four times higher than today:

      http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

      Looking over the geological record, as represented, there clearly is NOT a correlation between temperature and CO2 -- the relationship (if you can call it that) is all over the place.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "Without the UHIE you have no warming."

      No. The Urban Heat Island Effect has nothing to do with observed warming. That's because it has been known in the scientific literature since the very first paper considering whether humans could be causing CO2-mediated warming, Callendar 1938. I wrote about it here:

      https://hubpages.com/education/Global-Warming-Scie...

      Callendar compensated for UHI by considering sites separately by size (city, town, country, IIRC). More elaborate compensatory schemes have been introduced since--GISTEMP uses satellite monitoring of nighttime illumination as a proxy for urbanization, for example--but the principle is the same.

      Bottom line: if you consider only non-urbanized stations, they still show a strong warming trend.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      2 months ago from now on

      Oh yeah, TDS (Trump Derangement Scott)

      As usual Will, when you demonstrate he is wrong about anything, no apology just crickets, later a diversion.

    • profile image

      CD Marshall 

      2 months ago

      Yep sure did I said it.

      Climate changes all the time not a problem (at least not CO2's problem). Robert did an excellent presentation and showed the varied inconsistencies in the alleged 'warming' quite well. I'll say again IF the satellite data is honestly representing the temperature data it would show warming from El Nino and the cooling of El Nina. So where is it? Please show me and I'll shut up about it.

      I will sip my hot cup of joe while I wait with baited breath and perhaps hum a tune...

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "CD Marshall said it"

      I know, but that's typical for Scott and calling people 'deniers' .These are the same sort of rabid lunatics that executed the Salem 'witches'.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      2 months ago from now on

      CD Marshall said it

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Will says - "The so called “climate science” community actually ignores data from NASA satellites that shows no non-El Nino/La Nina warming since its inception in 1979."

      Where did I say that? Refresh me.

    • profile image

      Christopher Kish 

      2 months ago

      Consistently climbing beyond historic levels? Really? No. Not one shred off proof correlates that as I've said. At this point you sound like a broken desperate record well you and doc snow over there. I am sorry you can't learn anything but that was a given.

      Without El Nino and El Nina you have no warming and cooling. Without the UHIE you have no warming. Without Oceans going through 100 year cooling and warming cycles (that creates the El Nino and EL Nina) You'd have no warming or cooling. Without flat out liars you have no warming. For example they just said New Delhi has "highest records" a week or two ago. I checked those records that week and not one record was hit the entire week and that's called fraud.

      I'll go s-l-o-w-e-r

      CO2 does not cause warming no link has ever proved that. Therefore the alleged 'death spiral' is just a clever work of fiction...like nearly all 'climate science' these days in the art of political agenda. Really? IR radiation in a freezing cold atmosphere is trapping energy and converting it into heat? SPECTRA is now becoming a heat source instead of what it is, light? Stick a heated bottle of CO2 in a freezer does it trap the 'heat" and not allow thermal equilibrium to work? A freezing cold nitrogen atmosphere is a freezer and 13-18 microns is not going to make that warmer. Energy is not heat and all energy does not give off heat. That is why radiative cooling is a real weather phenomena.

      In the last 4500 years the Earth has experienced around 78 extreme weather changes with varied CO2 levels never influencing the outcome. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods were all warmer than today with far less CO2 levels. CO2 was at 4000 ppm when the Earth fell into one of it's ice ages and I believe 7000 ppm in another.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      2 months ago

      Scott the King of AGW

      If Q then P

      debunks your AGW kingdom.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Will says - "The so called “climate science” community actually ignores data from NASA satellites that shows no non-El Nino/La Nina warming since its inception in 1979."

      What Will says is FALSE - the global warming denying site never said such a thing. The only line that has "in 1979" in it is "If one considers the satellite era since 1979" and goes on to say nothing about El Nino or La Nina.

      BUT, in any case, the whole article is pointless as I show in

      https://hubpages.com/education/Science-Debunking-G...

      Their focus is on a short 17 year period of time which is minuscule when compared to the relevant period of 1880 - 2019 where temperatures and CO2 levels have been consistently climbing to beyond historic levels.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Well, if you don't know what I think it means, how do you know it does not mean what I think it means?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Not sure, Will, but it has nothing to do with adjusting winter temperatures (or those of any other season, for that matter.)

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      'Will... "anomalies" does not mean what you think it means in this context!'

      What do I think it means, Doc?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      2 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "Correct me if I'm right but... The so called “climate science” community actually ignores data from NASA satellites that shows no non-El Nino/La Nina warming since its inception in 1979."

      You're wrong, but I'll correct you anyway.

      Here's what the 2 satellite records look like since 1979:

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/ua...

      RSS has a warming trend of ~0.20 C/decade; UAH 6.0 has ~0.13. They are drawn from the same data, so the wide spread between the two records results from differences in the processing algorithms chosen--converting microwave radiance to temperature is pretty involved.

      But neither one comes close to showing a "lack of warming."

      Will... "anomalies" does not mean what you think it means in this context!

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "The so called “climate science” community actually ignores data from NASA satellites that shows no non-El Nino/La Nina warming since its inception in 1979."

      They also ignored the bitterly cold winters of the last few years and 'adjusted' that out of their calculations as 'anomalies' so that they could claim warmest years on record!

      This is a scam.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Tenths of degrees are huge on a global basis if sustained."

      That from someone who is totally unqualified to make such a statement but regularly attacks those who actually are qualified, like Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever, who said accurately measuring a 1 degree change in the temperature of a planet over a 100 year span is nearly impossible, much less 1/10 of a degree.

      And who can forget that the temperatures from worldwide monitors over a 100 year span were 'adjusted' by AGW supporters to indicate cooler temps in the late 1800's and warmer temperatures today, when the raw data showed no clear trend in either direction!

    • profile image

      C.D. Marshall 

      2 months ago

      Correct me if I'm right but...

      The so called “climate science” community actually ignores data from NASA satellites that shows no non-El Nino/La Nina warming since its inception in 1979. Almost all other alleged warming (not from El Nino and El Nina) can be attributed to the UHIE or a little nudge in the numbers from not so honest people who have on many occasions been caught in the act tampering temperature data.

      CO2 does not cause warming no link has ever proved that. Therefore the alleged 'death spiral' is just a clever work of fiction...like nearly all 'climate science' these days in the art of political agenda. Really? IR radiation in a freezing cold atmosphere is trapping energy and converting it into heat? SPECTRA is now becoming a heat source instead of what it is, light? Stick a heated bottle of CO2 in a freezer does it trap the 'heat" and not allow thermal equilibrium to work? A freezing cold nitrogen atmosphere is a freezer and 13-18 microns is not going to make that warmer. Energy is not heat and all energy does not give off heat. That is why radiative cooling is a real weather phenomena.

      In the last 4500 years the Earth has experienced around 78 extreme weather changes with varied CO2 levels never influencing the outcome. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods were all warmer than today with far less CO2 levels. CO2 was at 4000 ppm when the Earth fell into one of it's ice ages and I believe 7000 ppm in another.

      Jungles (arguably the greatest land sequestration of CO2) as we know them today were created in no less and would thrive in no less, than 550 ppm of CO2. Corral Reefs depend on the natural breakdown of CO2 in the water to form their Calcium Carbonate infrastructure.

      This doom and gloom is getting old and it's time for the climate science to start telling the truth or get a different job. I hear hotdog stands are popular these days. Everybody loves the hotdog vendor guy!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      2 months ago

      The Babble keep brooking.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "And, please, your claim that 1 degree will tip the scale into a climatic death spiral is completely irrational and unfounded. " - When the temperature increases to 2 degrees above the industrial revolution baseline, virtually every real climatologists agree (yes, there are an outlier or two) that the oceans and forests start giving up their stored CO2 - that is the beginning of the death spiral.

      https://www.livescience.com/58891-why-2-degrees-ce...

      https://www.popsci.com/what-happens-if-earth-gets-...

      https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCa...

      Yes "Again, there is evidence that Earth has experience far, far greater changes than that, long before we were here." - BUT ALWAYS the CO2 levels remained in NORMAL levels. CO2 is now as high as it was 3 million years ago when the earth was much, much hotter and uninhabitable by man, for the most part.

      And that is the difference between today and your history. During the 800,000 or so years you like to point to, CO2 levels remained between something like 200 and 325 parts per million. Today it is 410 and rapidly rising. So your reliance on your historical timeframe flys out the window. You must go back to when the CO2 levels were much higher.

      BTW, a rough calculation gives Average Global Temperature = 4.8 + .025 * CO2 level in ppm. That puts today's average global temperature of 15.05 degrees Celsius. The actual temp is - 14.9 degrees (2017) and it is a bit warmer today.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      2 months ago from now on

      “One phrase tells me you don't have a good handle on climatology -“

      Like he would know what a good handle on climatology is? Many “climatologists” don’t have a good handle on climatology and what is Scott? A bloviator best describes him who’s best argument on anything is to simply to try to denigrate the messenger with lies and innuendo. He should study the excellent video Science Educator provided, it says everything you need to know about people like Scott who parrot talking points.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      2 months ago

      Robert

      I liked your response, and I particularly liked this part.

      "Now about sea level, first, my chart shows no more alarming acceleration in natural sea-level rise than is usual. One more time, sea level rises -- that's a feature of the Earth system. It has always risen. It has sometimes fallen."

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      2 months ago

      Scott B,

      I'm just now seeing your comment (I don't always check back regularly), so sorry for the delayed response.

      If I agreed that tenths of degrees are huge, then I would not have written what I had written. Over the entire span of Earth's geological existence, there have been periods where your supposed "huge" tenths are dwarfed by the much greater changes (up and down) that occurred, long before humans came onto the scene. We have not been in existence long enough to truthfully compare our era to previous geological eras or to separate our effect from natural effects that far exceed our current complete understanding.

      Merely associating tenths of degrees, over a relatively short span of geological existence, with human industrial activity is merely making an association, and then you are magnifying this mere association with an underlying fear of human activity as being somehow unnatural, thus forcing an irrational claim that WE are the cause of those mere tenths of a degree.

      And, please, your claim that 1 degree will tip the scale into a climatic death spiral is completely irrational and unfounded. Again, there is evidence that Earth has experience far, far greater changes than that, long before we were here. "Climatic death spiral" is way too dramatic to be considered part of a rational discussion of this issue.

      Your focus is too narrow, thus forcing you to repeat support for the very flaw that I showed IS a flaw, but, like a child, you say, "Is too" to my "Is not", without offering any substantial support. Again, the standard temperature chart that I offer exaggerates the "y" axis, to make tenths of degrees HUGE over multiple years, and the fact that climate science does this is precisely what I am calling a fake presentation.

      Your criticism of my second, realistic temperature chart simply denies the truth of what I have already explained, ... and explained again, ... and you refuse to accept the explanation, instead merely repeating the same flawed claim whose flaw I explained, taking you 'round and 'round in your circle of denial of reality.

      Now about sea level, first, my chart shows no more alarming acceleration in natural sea-level rise than is usual. One more time, sea level rises -- that's a feature of the Earth system. It has always risen. It has sometimes fallen. There is evidence that it has risen far more than a peon amount over centuries, in the past. If you really believe that we can define a global-ocean sea level , for which we can accurately measure inches of rise over centuries, then I fear that you are under a very false impression of human ability to gauge such things.

      My charts on hurricanes completely disprove your claim of increasing hurricane intensity. Look at them again -- they indicate "accumulated cyclone energy" (a measure of strength), NOT frequency of storms. As I pointed out in the article, "There has been no increasing trend in Atlantic hurricane intensity for at least the last sixty-five years and, no increasing trend in North Pacific Hurricanes for at least forty-five years."

      Your calculations, then, appear to contradict the official trend determinations. What is the time span over which you are measuring increasing force? From when, until "up through the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season"? Are you looking at the long-term trend of the charts I presented?

      A short-term span in a longer-term span does NOT indicate the longer-term trend, and this is what we are interested in, where climate is concerned. You are talking about weather, if you are talking about this shorter time span in only recent years.

      That's all I can say for now.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      One phrase tells me you don't have a good handle on climatology -

      "Tenths of a degree! The whole Earth! For over a hundred years! This is remarkably stable."

      Tenths of degrees are huge on a global basis if sustained. The baseline used by most climatologists used to measure from is the left part of your chart, the late 1800s because that is the beginning of the industrial revolution where carbon was being introduced into the atmosphere in historic amounts. That means since then, global temperatures have increased .8 degrees Celsius. Another 1 degree will tip the scale into a climatic death spiral.

      You claim the increase in temperatures represents so-called stability, lol. Even the chart you offer has proof clear shows an increasing trend, not a cyclical one which is what "stability" implies.

      Hidden in the scale problem your second chart presents is the same, steady increase in temperatures. If you used a proper scale, it would also show temperatures increasing at an increasing rate.

      Your third chart confirms the impact of global warming. I proper chart would have started in say 1700 to pick up the period prior to the industrial revolution (it was flat, btw, running around the zero level on your chart). Your chart also shows sea level rising at an increasing rate - not good.

      Your charts on hurricanes is misleading given the prediction isn't that there will more storms. Instead, the prediction is the what storms do happen will be more violent, i.e. fewer T.S., Cat 1, and Cat 2, but more Cat 3, Cat 4, and Cat 5. My calculations show that up through the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season, that is exactly what is happening.

    • profile image

      ScienceEducator 

      4 months ago

      Doc Snow is a flat Earther...you won't be getting any reasoned debate or references to reality from it!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7sBosb74kg

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      4 months ago

      Here's a reality check on wind and solar power:

      https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-r...

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      4 months ago

      Here's a reality check on animal extinction:

      https://notrickszone.com/2019/05/16/recent-studies...

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      4 months ago

      Doc,

      I am not sure how you conclude that I am the one who won't look.

      I have provided evidence, and it is you who will not look at it and recognize it as such.

      I can't help you there.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 months ago from now on

      Here is some food for thought.

      Study sponsored by NOAA finds that poorly-sited air temperature monitoring stations have artificially boosted global warming data.

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19...

    • profile image

      C.D.Marshall 

      4 months ago

      How is it that all trolls on all sites repeat the exact same rhetoric? Whether it's Doc Coc or Joe Smoe it's all drafted by the same source. Funny how they claim "papers" is a source. Here I thought that giant thing in the sky that glows yellow was the source.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      4 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      I said I might check back. Been kind of quiet lately, it would seem.

      Robert, all your words are to say that "you believe" that nothing is different than in the past--though you present no evidence whatever to back your assertions. But because you believe it, does not make it so.

      In short, you are utterly in denial. You can't see because you won't look.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 months ago

      To doc:

      ["Robert, I really have exhausted the time I have available here. But I must note that when you say "if humans are not the cause of current climate change, then human-caused climate change is not the cause of current animal migrations," you are seriously shifting your rhetorical ground."]

      I am not really sure what you might mean by this or what significance it might have. Anytime anybody frames a new sentence, he is "shifting" the ground from one logical sentence to another, and this is exactly what I did.

      You think that animal migrations today indicate a human-climate-change cause. This is the underlying assumption in your insistence that animal migrations today are "disrupted" or are alarming in some way.

      But if humans are NOT causing the climate change that could disrupt animal migrations, then how are today's migrations any more alarming than past animal migrations? ANSWER: They are NOT, because humans are NOT causing the climate change that might be causing today's animal migrations.

      It's simple logical deduction. Is this what you call "shifting"? If so, then, okay, I am shifting from one logical statement to the implied next logical statement. Nothing wrong with this -- it's how we display good reasoning.

      ["The whole gist of what you are saying has been that any warming is insignificant."]

      No, the gist of what I am saying is that any warming at all now is no more significant than any such warming of the past. And if animals are migrating today, then this is as it has been in the past, when temperatures were as they are today or more.

      Nothing special about today's warming. Nothing special about today's animal migrations that can be linked to warming caused by humans.

      [" Are you now conceding that it is, after all, as shown by all those 'animal migrations?' But it's OK, because 'It's not us doing it?'"]

      Again, no, I concede nothing that you think that I might. I am saying that animals migrate in response to warming, for sure, and that I have no proof that today's animal migrations are any more unusual BECAUSE OF WARMING than past animal migrations were because of warming.

      There are other factors that influence animal migrations, and I am not sure that all of those factors have been separated in such a way as to say whether or not temperature ALONE is a significant driving factor today.

      As with other things, the alarm over animal migrations seems attributed out of fear and superficial correlations that have not been established as cause/effect relationship. And yeah, it [animal migrations today] is okay, with respect to any human hand in changing temperatures [because we are NOT]. But maybe not okay, if something else humans are doing causes migration disruption. That's a whole other area of research.

      Look at how much land-use change humans have caused. Positively, this has had an effect on animal migrations. Every time we build a house and fence in a backyard, we influence how animals move. Humans are dominant and have done this for centuries, wiping out huge herds of animals in the American West, for example, and destroying many animal habitats, in order to create civilization.

      We might have been a bit careless in doing this. And we can be more responsible about this, for sure. But this is NOT a climate issue -- this is a land-use issue -- a true environmental-health issue, NOT a fake CO2-climate-warming issue.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      5 months ago

      Paris Accord a solution to what?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, I really have exhausted the time I have available here. But I must note that when you say "if humans are not the cause of current climate change, then human-caused climate change is not the cause of current animal migrations," you are seriously shifting your rhetorical ground.

      The whole gist of what you are saying has been that any warming is insignificant. Are you now conceding that it is, after all, as shown by all those 'animal migrations?' But it's OK, because 'It's not us doing it?'

      That's a whole other level of denial, if so.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 months ago from now on

      Sno, do you really think you can sneak by calling me the deceiver?

      If I deceived by leaving out any part of an answer to this question

      “What would you say about man made carbon dioxide causing global warming if I told you that the amount of man made carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere (which scientist admit is minscule) is less than the margin of error in aprroximating the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere?”

      then why didn't you quote the rest of it. It was only a short bit if your usual BS that had nothing to do with that question. I'll post it for you since you obviously don't want anyone to see that it wasn't an answer to that question.

      "Tsad, scientists do not 'admit' that artificial CO2 is 'minscule'. It's small compared to natural fluxes, true enough--9 billion tons of anthropogenic carbon annually, as compared with 120 billion natural in terrestrial photosynthesis and 90 billion in air-sea gas exchanges, per the DOE's 'BORIS' data:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#/media/File:Carbon_cycle.jpg

      In this sort of context, I wouldn't call ~4.5% 'minuscule', and it's certainly not negligible from a practical point of view.

      That's because the natural fluxes are balanced, and the anthropogenic flux is not--only part of those emissions are being absorbed by carbon sinks. (Specifically, 5 billion tons are taken up by land and sea sinks, leaving a net of 4 billion tons to account for the current observed annual increase of around 2 ppm.)"

      Now does that sound like an answer to this question?

      “What would you say about man made carbon dioxide causing global warming if I told you that the amount of man made carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere (which scientist admit is minscule) is less than the margin of error in aprroximating the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere?”

      Well if anyone doubts me they can go here:

      https://hubpages.com/education/Climate-Change-Pred...

      scroll down 4 comments to my question then look Back up at all the prodding I did to get him to answer that question which he never did.

      Sno, sir you are nothing but a pathetic fraud pushing a hoax of man made global warming.

    • profile image

      ScienceEducator 

      5 months ago

      WillStarr...it is true...the left is entirely corrupted by lies. Everything they do is and say is a lie. Normally one wouldn't make such gross generalizations that a lie in one place means a lie in another...but after years and years and looking at everything the left does...ALL they do is lie! It is incredibly consistent. In fact it is uncannily consistent. If it were just stupidity then you could expect accidental correctness...but it is consistent lying wrongness, which indicates *preference and direction*. It is in fact, reduces to, parasitism. If you simply look at them as parasites then all of their lying and everything they do becomes consistent and makes sense in that context. They can't help but lie...it is what defines them, as parasites, and parasites will indeed kill their host and destroy their host even as it means killing themselves. Just look at every degenerate thing the left stands for today...and consider whether it is consistent with evolutionary history and the survival of any sexually reproducing species. In this context, then they are a parasite that seeks to destroy our species.

      They are Last Men. Non-thinking parasitical Last Men. The thinking are the Supermen. One man is extinction, the other is life.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Let me remind all of you that almost all the support for AGW is coming from the left, and it's the same left that has insisted for over two years that President Trump is a Russian spy. Today, that lie came tumbling down.

      That, plus dozens of other provable lies coming from the left, including the charge that capitalism is causing the destruction of the planet, is why I reject the entire hoax of man-caused global warming. Just like collusion was a lie, so is AGW.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 months ago

      ["(And I'm not flattering myself about driving the traffic, particularly; it's just a fact that lots of comments help keep a Hub featured. The *quality* of the comments isn't necessarily a big criterion!)"]

      I do not believe that it was YOU who attracted the comments here. Instead, I invited people here -- that's why lots of the comments happened -- I invited them. So, at best, BOTH of us are the cause of any traffic spike, on top of the fact that this hub was already featured.

      The hub was featured immediately. You commented. I invited people over. They came. Your comments were fodder for them, and so they commented. Without moi, it is you who would have had fewer views here. (^_^)

      And the reason that I digress on this point is because I regard your self attribution to my traffic rise as rather a self-aggrandizing gesture.

      Of late, you seem to have been focusing on animal migrations. My general answer to those comments is that if humans are not the cause of current climate change, then human-caused climate change is not the cause of current animal migrations.

      Animals have always migrated, just as climate has always changed. If there is a more intense focus on animal migration today, then logically, this focus would gain some greater attention. But the greater ATTENTION is NOT due to a greater human-caused climate change.

      To prove that animal migrations indicate a human-caused-climate-change problem, you must first prove that there IS a human-caused climate problem, and this proof does NOT EXIST.

      If anything, humans are inhibiting migration patterns, with their built structures and barriers.

      I wonder what effect massive solar farms or massive wind-mill farms would have on animal migrations. Proponents of "renewable energy" infrastructure do-overs seem reluctant to delve into this negative aspect of their grand plans.

    • profile image

      ScienceEducator 

      5 months ago

      "Specifically, it claims that climate science is based on flat earth theory because simplified diagrams don't show Earth's curvature."

      It's the mathematics, Doc Snow. The mathematics equates to flat Earth theory. And yes, they DO also depict a diagram as a flat plane too. There is consistency.

      The division of the solar constant by 4 is what creates the flat Earth mathematics. The solar constant *does not* impinge the entire surface of the Earth at once, and physics occurs in real time, not by averages. An input of the solar constant divided by 4 does not empirically exist. What empirically exists is the solar constant, with full intensity at the solar zenith with ~+90C of heating, decreasing as the cosine away from the zenith. The input *is not* -18C on a flat plane. And yes, it makes a difference. It makes a difference because a solar input of S/4 can't melt ice, this requiring an additional mechanism to explain higher temperatures. Whereas the real-time input can certainly explain the weather. The latter is natural, the former is an invented fake mechanism to "correct" for flat Earth mathematics.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "...the world needs as much well-focused intelligence as possible."

      Indeed it does. Hope you'll reconsider what I've said.

      (And I'm not flattering myself about driving the traffic, particularly; it's just a fact that lots of comments help keep a Hub featured. The *quality* of the comments isn't necessarily a big criterion!)

      Thanks again for your courtesy, and be well.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 months ago

      Doc, as I've stated in other places on the internet, I started out, years ago, as a fervent believer in what was then called "human caused global warming". I read lots of the so called "evidence". I stuck with my beliefs for years, but, over time, I DID consider the opposing arguments, and, yes, they won me over as much more rational, fact-based, and consistent with reality.

      So, I have been on the "other side" as a big fan. I CAME from the other side. This should say something revealing about my current stance -- that a reasonably intelligent person, who once believed in the threat of human-caused climate change came to the conclusion that such a belief is unfounded in fact.

      The fact that the issue is polarized, as you say, is itself a statement of truth -- that the so called "science" is most definitely NOT settled.

      How can two people like us maintain strong positions on opposite poles? That in itself tells me something is wrong with the human-caused-climate change narrative.

      Thanks for commenting, but don't flatter yourself too much about how much traffic you have driven to my hub. (^_^) I invited some of the commentators here, and they kindly dropped in, which I appreciate.

      Thanks again for stopping by, and I hope that you might gain greater clarity at some point, since the world needs as much well-focused intelligence as possible.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, I appreciate you kind words about my writing, but disagree completely with your perpective. As I said, I believe that you and some of your 'team' here are the ones kidding themselves. But the topic has become so polarized that few are willing to seriously try to grasp the other's point of view, or consider evidence with an open mind.

      And yes, I fully anticipate that you'll see that statement as applicable to me.

      However, I will leave that to less partisan readers here to judge.

      Thanks, it's been fun. Maybe I'll check back and weigh in again sometime.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Tsad, you speak about "deceiving", then you quote only one paragraph of a longer comment.

      Look in the mirror, sir.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Will, "You quote yourself as your source, Doc? How convenient."

      It's a blatant promo, it's true--but then, I've spents hours now driving traffic to Robert's Hub; seems like it's only fair to get something back.

      I hope you won't use the provenance as an excuse to avoid considering the information I offer.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "Doc Snow: Your humble admission you didn't know climatic optima and their definitions even existed is accepted."

      If you look back at my previous comments, you'll find it's not only 'accepted', it's totally imagined.

      Do you really think that if I knew nothing about thermodynamics, I'd be unable to Google up more than enough information to answer your silly questions?

      I consider the vexed question of the Second Law and so-called "back radiation" here, in a Hub published back in 2012:

      https://hubpages.com/education/Global-Warming-Scie...

      I quote Clausius's classic formulation of the second law, and consider some of the observations relevant to the Gerlick & Tscheuschner nonsense that was then current--observations antedating Clausius, and which would have formed part of the background he had in creating his formulations of the laws of thermodynamics.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 months ago

      Doc,

      You have lots to offer, and, unfortunately, I do not have time to respond to every one of your comments.

      I suppose that you could take this as a complement, as long as you realize that what you offer is a really good education in how possible it is for a master of language to talk around the truth.

      A brief note about the mathematical physicists that you attempted to cite and misspelled a name: It's Gerlich and Tscheuschner. Here's a hubpages article that I wrote about them in 2012:

      https://hubpages.com/education/Questioning-The-Gre...

      As for Postma's "flat-Earth" claim, I think you do not understand that he means the mathematics and NOT the visual representation of the Earth. It is quite possible to know that the physical shape of Earth is a globe, and yet NOT know that a particular mathematical derivation represents a flat Earth.

      So, yeah, the claimed "scientists" CAN know that the Earth is a globe, at the same time that they FAIL to know that the mathematics they use to attribute radiation characteristics to it could only be for a flat Earth.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      You quote yourself as your source, Doc? How convenient.

    • James A Watkins profile image

      James A Watkins 

      5 months ago from Chicago

      Thank you for writing this excellent article.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Sci Ed--

      The link you posted is a massive fail.

      Specifically, it claims that climate science is based on flat earth theory because simplified diagrams don't show Earth's curvature. (We know they're simplified because the bottom one is helpfully labeled "A Simple Model Of The Greenhouse Effect.") If you can't see how feeble that is, I really don't know how to explain it to you.

      But the ignorance of basics really kicks in when the discussion moves to incoming solar radiation. To quote: the diagrams "represent the Earth as flat and with 342.5 W/m²." It then goes on to calculate the Sun's distance from Earth, which works out to be twice as far as we know it to be!

      Damning, isn't it? How could those so-called 'scientists' make such a bone-headed error, anyway?

      They didn't. The writer of the blog is full of applesauce. Rule one should always be "understand what you purport to criticize." What used to be called the "solar constant" is ~1361 W/m2:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Irr...

      So, why does the science--*not*, be it said, the diagrams as the blog claims; they give no absolute value whatever--give a value of 342.5--just 1/4 of the solar constant? (Let's note in passing that the top diagram implicitly acknowledges that, giving a relative value of S/4.)

      Why, they do that *to account for the fact that the 1361 W/m2 is projected upon the surface of a rotating spheroid*!

      https://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/climate_e...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Will, the nitrogen, oxygen and argon are basically inactive in terms of Earth's greenhouse effect. Thus, they are not relevant for that purpose.

      The water vapor has a typical residence time in the atmosphere of something like 2 weeks because it precipitates out. In simulations without CO2 the consequence of this is that you end up with a snowball Earth. The water vapor is significant of course, but its relative instability makes it unsuited to be a 'control'.

      And as to the notion that 'man-made' CO2 is 4% of the total, again that's not true if you are talking about the total stock in the atmosphere, which is what determines temperature. Human emissions since 1800 or so have raised atmospheric CO2 from ~280 ppm to the current ~410. That's 46%+, as I said. And also as I said, there are multiple lines of evidence supporting that conclusion. I wrote about it here:

      https://hubpages.com/politics/How-Do-We-Know-That-...

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 months ago from now on

      So “Tsad, I do in fact have a doctorate... and I did in fact answer your question, which was "What you say if..." Apparently when you ask what I would say, and I tell you, you don't believe me. Not my problem.” ~ Sno

      This was my question since you want to deceive by summarizing it.

      “What would you say about man made carbon dioxide causing global warming if I told you that the amount of man made carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere (which scientist admit is minscule) is less than the margin of error in aprroximating the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere?”

      My question wasn’t "What you say if..."

      It was “What would you say about man made carbon dioxide causing global warming if...”

      Nice try Sno but typical of your deceptions. And here was your answer:

      “As to the question of margin of error in the measurements, I'd welcome any specific information you may have on that. I'm sure it's out there; scientists always pay close attention to the question of all sorts of potential errors in measurement.”

      Does that sound to anyone like an answer to my question? It’s evasive rhetoric to avoid answering my hypothetical because the answer has to be then the Co2 warming is meaningless and there is no way in hell his brainwashed mind can even entertain the thought.

      Oh yeah and his doctorate! That’s right he does have an earned doctorate,

      in composition!

      Which means he has absolutely no credentials in science but is an expert at writing to avoid answering questions.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Man's CO2 contribution is about 00.000005% of the total atmosphere.

      The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and .9% argon. That's 99.9%.

      Only .1% of our atmosphere is composed of so-called 'greenhouse ' gases. One tenth of one percent

      Of that .1%, 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor.

      Of the remaining 5% only about 4% (four percent of five percent) is CO2 and less than 4% of that is man-caused.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Tsad, I do in fact have a doctorate... and I did in fact answer your question, which was "What you say if..." Apparently when you ask what I would say, and I tell you, you don't believe me. Not my problem.

      Will, again, man's cumulative contribution is now over 46% of the total CO2 burden. *Not* 'tiny'.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 months ago from now on

      Will, same thing he said to me, I stand by my answer” when he never actually gave an answer! And he has no Doctorate.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I am far from convinced that man's tiny, tiny contribution to our massive atmosphere is altering our climate to any real degree. Like peeing in a lake will increase the temperature of that lake, in the real world, it's such a tiny influence that it's insignificant.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 months ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Well, given that we ourselves evolved during the Ice Age cycles, probably, yes. As I see it, anyway.

      Though I'd have to note that human ingenuity makes us one of the least habitat-reliant species around, of course--the ultimate example to me being the pan-Arctic indigenous people (Eskimo, Inuit, Sami, etc.) They thrived in conditions even the Vikings couldn't hack.

      But even so, humans do depend on a well-functioning biosphere, so it wouldn't be wise to disrupt it (even though we are in fact doing so rapidly and in multiple ways right now, including ways quite apart from climate change).

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)