Hockeystick Con Job; CO2 Can’t Cause Temperature Dog-Legs

Every con has a way to see through it if you look hard enough to find the truth. Recently a man was arrested for running a Super Bowl Pool scam. He claimed he was kidnapped after police discovered him tied and taped up in a car. What was the dead giveaway? He claimed to have been tied up and driven around for 3 days. The problem is, the police noticed that he had just shaven earlier in the day, and didn’t have the hair growth associated with 3 days of kidnapping. Skepticism is what solves 100% of scams, if you aren’t skeptical, you are the one that gets scammed.

The first clue to the “Hockey Stick” scam is that the chart “dog-legs” twice, both corresponding with changes in the data construction. The first is in 1902 when thermometer data is introduced and the above chart turns from blue to red, and then in 1980 when proxy data is dropped altogether.

There are numerous problems with this Temperature Chart.

  1. Plenty of thermometer measurements existed before 1902, but were not included in the data set. Why? (Possible Explanation)
  2. Statistical “tricks” were used “adjust” the proxy data in order to “Hide the Decline.” (Source)
  3. The “Hockey Stick” isn’t confirmed by the longest continual instrumental temperature record. The “Hockey Stick” relies on inaccurate proxy data over far more accurate instrumental data.
  4. Lastly, and more importantly, there is nothing about the physics of a CO2 molecule or trend in atmospheric CO2 that can explain a temperature “Dog-Leg” in 1902 or 1980.

Why?

The Trend in CO2 has been a  gradual increase since the mid-1700s. There are no dog-legs in the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere post-1750.

co2-ice-core_1000ad-1978ad_law-dome_etheridge-et-al_700w

Using direct measurements of CO2, and not inaccurate ice-core proxies, the smooth trend in CO2 is much more pronounced. There is no dog-leg in 1980.

Image result for co2 level graph

The problem the Climate Alarmist’s scam faces is that the W/M^2 absorbed by CO2 isn’t linear like the CO2 trend, it shows a logarithmic DECAY. Unlike the “Hockey Stick” that shows linear warming with the linear CO2 increase, the marginal W/M^2 actually DECREASES with additional CO2. From the following chart, CO2 added 29.8 W/M^2 to the atmospheric energy budget when it increased from 0.00 ppm to the pre-industrial 300 ppm maximum level. The post-industrial CO2 increase from 300 to 400 ppm added an additional 1.38 W/M^2, and doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will add an additional 3.33 W/M^2. To put those numbers in perspective, a simple cumulus cloud layer can “trap” 28.7 W/M^2 without any catastrophic consequences to warming.

logarithmic-1.jpg

The “Hockey Stick” shows a gradual decrease in temperatures between 1000 and 1900, during a time when CO2 increased from 280 to 300 ppm, and added 0.28 W/M^2. CO2, however, bottomed about 1600 when CO2 dropped to 275 ppm. Between 1600 and 1900, CO2 increased from 275 to 300 ppm and added 0.35 W/M^2 yet the “Hockey Stick” shows temperatures decreasing over that time period. Then, inexplicably, between 1900 and 1960, when CO2 increased from 300 to 315 ppm, the relationship between W/M^2 and temperatures takes a dramatic shift. The additional 0.19 W/M^2 increase attributed to the additional CO2 causes a dramatic change in temperatures. Whereas the previous additional 0.35 W/M^2 resulted in COOLING, the additional 0.19 W/M^2 was able to reverse the trend in temperatures and result in rapid warming of a full 0.4°C. Then, when CO2 increased from 315 to 370 ppm, adding an additional 0.6 W/M^2, or 3x the change between 300 and 315 ppm, temperatures increased by 0.6°C. The ΔT and ΔCO2 and ΔW/M^2 relationship defined by the “Hockey Stick” is extremely variable. The real physics of the CO2 molecule isn’t variable, they are constant.

Most, if not all of the warming shown in the “Hockey Stick” is mostly monkey business, manufactured through manipulating proxy data to “hide declines” and exaggerate warming. How do I know this other than from the leaked Climategate Emails? Simple, the physics of the CO2 molecule are constant. You don’t need complicated proxy reconstructions from all over the world, you simply need one data source that is measured in a consistent manner. CO2 evenly blends throughout the atmosphere, so the W/M^2 of CO2 is constant no matter where you are on the globe. Because of this even blending and constant radiation regardless of location, one location is enough to measure the impact of CO2 on temperatures. The longest continual instrumental temperature record, ie no proxies, is Central England. That record starts in the mid-1600s and shows no material warming with the increase in CO2. Nada. Current temperatures are below the level reached in 1687, 1729, 1785, 1827, etc etc. It is important to remember that much of that data set was created during the Little Ice Age.

Notice how the tail end temperatures seem to jump after attention was paid to global warming. CO2 didn’t suddenly spike up in 1990, but the temperatures did. Also, temperatures FELL between 1940 and 1995 during a period when CO2 increased dramatically. Lastly, if the regression line had started in 1729 instead of the bottom of the Little Ice Age in 1659, the regression would be either flat or downward sloping.

Image result for central england temperature

Another interesting source on this topic.

Michael Mann is one of the “scientists” that President Obama was gullible enough to believe. The fact that 97% of climate “scientists” rely on such laughably pathetic climate research pretty much proves Climate Scientists are mostly either con artists or fools…or both.

How did science become such a haven for con men? Pay them to corrupt science for the “public good.”

Here is the real history of temperature that covers the entire Holocene. It should be obvious why Michael Mann only modeled the last 1,000 years. As a reminder, there were no SUVs or Coal Burning Powerplants for most of the Holocene.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-blog and Comment

7 thoughts on “Hockeystick Con Job; CO2 Can’t Cause Temperature Dog-Legs”

  1. Here we present a cosmic ray record for the past 9,400 y for which the system effects were minimized. This high-resolution and low-noise paleocosmic ray record is used to derive solar activity that in turn provides a powerful tool to search for the solar fingerprint in climate records.

    “9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings”
    https://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Measurements have been made of the Earth’s magnetic field more or less continuously since about 1840. Some measurements even go back to the 1500s, for example at Greenwich in London. If we look at the trend in the strength of the magnetic field over this time (for example the so-called ‘dipole moment’ shown in the graph below) we can see a downward trend. Indeed projecting this forward in time would suggest zero dipole moment in about 1500-1600 years time. This is one reason why some people believe the field may be in the early stages of a reversal. We also know from studies of the magnetisation of minerals in ancient clay pots that the Earth’s magnetic field was approximately twice as strong in Roman times as it is now.
    Even so, the current strength of the magnetic field is not particularly low in terms of the range of values it has had over the last 50,000 years.
    http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/reversals.html

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Map of predicted annual rate of change of total intensity for 2015.0-2020.0

    You can see that the waves of ozone reach over North America far south.

    Ozone is diamagnetic, with all its electrons paired. In contrast, O2 is paramagnetic, containing two unpaired electrons.
    The increase of ozone in the lower stratosphere in winter leads to a strong decrease in surface temperature.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The graph shows the dependence of temperature on the strength of the geomagnetic field. This field protects us against the impact of galactic radiation on changes in the chemistry of the lower stratosphere.

    If you look at a geomagnetic cutoff, you will understand the circulation during periods of low solar wind.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s