The theory goes that man is causing CO2 to increase at an increasing rate, causing temperatures to increase at an increasing rate, which caused land-based glaciers to melt at an increasing rate, which should cause sea levels to increase at an increasing rate. Everything is a second derivative argument. Because of this direct relation between temperatures and sea level rate of increase I’ve always maintained that the fact that sea levels weren’t increasing at an increasing rate, this fact provided a “Smoking Gun” debunking the AGW theory.
More research has just been published reinforcing this debunking and demonstrating that sea levels are not related to atmospheric CO2, and are not increasing at an increasing rate. In fact, they are quite stable.
A new paper by renowned Swedish sea level expert Prof. Axel Mörmer published in the International Journal of Earth & Environmental Sciences dumps lots of cold water on the premise that today’s sea level rise is caused by man and is unusual.
Mörner’s paper looks back at the last 500 years of sea level rise and shows that natural variables are the major drivers, and not man-made CO2-driven global warming.
The Swedish scientist summarizes in the paper’s abstract that there is a total absence of data supporting the notion of a present sea level rise; on the contrary, all available facts indicate present sea level stability.
The paper also states that the recorded sea level changes are anti-correlated with the major changes in climate during the last 600 years. Therefore, Mörner concludes that glacial eustasy cannot be the driving force.
Read more: Renowned Sea Level Expert: “NO TRACES OF A PRESENT RISE IN SEA LEVEL; On The Contrary: Full Stability”
Please like, share, subscribe and comment.
Dr. Nir Shaviv on Cambridge Debate: ‘I was quite shocked to see how the audience was so one-sided (though far less than the ridiculous 97:3 ratio we hear about!) and unwilling to listen to scientific arguments.’
Like Freeman Dyson, Dr. Shaviv’s provides validation for many of the arguments made in previous CO2isLife posts. The links in the following list highlight past CO2isLife posts. These arguments provide more evidence that when disinterested people with the educational background to understand these issues evaluate the science and data they reach the same conclusion, and that conclusion isn’t that CO2 is causing the warming.
Dr. Shaviv’s Key scientific points:
- ‘Evidence for warming is not evidence for warming by humans.’
- ‘Anyone who appeals to authority or to a majority [97% claims] to substantiate his or her claim is proving nothing.’
- ‘The polar bear population is now probably at its highest in modern times!’
- ‘There is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature.’
- ‘Over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature.
- 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciations.’
- ‘The simple truth is that in the height of the middle ages it was probably just as warm as the latter half of the 20th century’
- ‘Taking unnecessary precautionary steps when we know they are unnecessary is immoral. It is even committing statistical murder.’
- ‘Let us use our limited resources to treat real problems.’
Read More: Israeli Astrophysicist rejects UN IPCC
Please like, share, subscribe and comment
Reading Freeman Dyson’s HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY I was pleasantly surprised at how many of the flaws in the AGW theory I’ve written about in this blog he also identifies. He also highlights how his critics claim that he has “no degree in meteorology and…therefore not qualified to speak,” to which he states “I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do.” That is almost the exact statement I’ve made countless time in my blog posts, “While I don’t have a background in climatology (whatever that is), I do have a background that includes multivariable modeling, properly applying the scientific method, advanced statistics and mathematics, quantum physics and chemistry both inorganic and organic. I view not being a climate “scientist” as a benefit, more than a hindrance, because I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m only interested in the truth.”
Why this is important is because both Freeman Dyson and I looked at Climate Change from the perspective of an unbiased, disinterested observer that is trained in physics and mathematics, not political propaganda. We are simply attempting to discover the scientific truth. Because we both are familiar with physics and modeling we both focused on the characteristics of the variables, quality of the data, the significance of the factors, and the explanatory power of the model. Many of my posts focused on examining those issues, and I made statements and conclusions based on my own understanding of the variables and physics. I based those posts on a common sense application of the science, all of which were independently reached, and not based upon any conclusion of “peer-reviewed” research. The selection of those issues was based on my estimate of the importance of those variables in a climate model. I wanted to identify the issues that offered the most bang for the buck in either supporting or debunking the AGW theory.
A single paragraph in Freeman Dyson’s article reads like an Index of CO2isLife posts and clearly demonstrates that when two totally independent people with adequate knowledge to understand the issues looks at the AGW theory and climate models, they both reach the same conclusions. The following is the paragraph mentioned above, with links to the CO2isLife blog posts. It is important to note that all those blog posts were written well before the Freeman Dyson article.
In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter.
The one issue Freeman Dyson did not address is the fact that the oceans are warming. The oceans are by far the major driver of the global climate. They are the earth’s thermostat, holding over 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere. What is warming the oceans is also warming the atmosphere. CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is to absorb and thermalize IR radiation between 13 and 18µ. Those wavelengths don’t penetrate or warm water. To understand what is warming the atmosphere you have to understand what is warming the oceans…and it ain’t CO2 and IR between 13 and 18µ.
Please like, share, comment and subscribe.
At one time, in the past 6,000 years, the Sahara Desert was teaming with life, even Hippos.
4. The Wet Sahara
My second heresy is also concerned with climate change. It is about the mystery of the wet Sahara. This is a mystery that has always fascinated me. At many places in the Sahara desert that are now dry and unpopulated, we find rock-paintings showing people with herds of animals. The paintings are abundant, and some of them are of high artistic quality, comparable with the more famous cave-paintings in France and Spain. The Sahara paintings are more recent than the cave-paintings. They come in a variety of styles and were probably painted over a period of several thousand years. The latest of them show Egyptian influences and may be contemporaneous with early Egyptian tomb paintings. Henri Lhote’s book, “The Search for the Tassili Frescoes”, [Lhote, 1958], is illustrated with reproductions of fifty of the paintings. The best of the herd paintings date from roughly six thousand years ago. They are strong evidence that the Sahara at that time was wet. There was enough rain to support herds of cows and giraffes, which must have grazed on grass and trees. There were also some hippopotamuses and elephants. The Sahara then must have been like the Serengeti today.
Read More: HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
Please like, share, subscribe and comment
By Freeman Dyson
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.
But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.
The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.
Read More: Freeman Dyson on ‘heretical’ thoughts about global warming
Please like, share, subscribe and comment
The first rule of modeling is to identify the most significant and obvious factors first. Only in the field of climate “science” would researchers overlook the fact that Antarctica is sitting on one very huge and very hot magma plume and the fact that the glacier is melting from beneath, and reach the conclusion that Antarctica is melting from above due to CO2 and atmospheric warming. Ignoring the fact that Antarctica has sub-zero temperatures year round, and there has been no warming in Antarctica for over 50 years, the experts insist on blaming CO2. Why? Because there is no money in blaming natural causes. It is that simple.
Imagine drifting over Antarctica’s icy expanse. A white continent extends below you, and it’s smothered in enough frozen water to drown every coastline in the world in a 216-foot (66 meters) wave if it were to melt. But scientists now believe that, deep beneath almost 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) of ice and a relatively thin slice of rocky crust, one region of the frozen continent hides a column of red-hot magma, straining toward the surface, according to a new study…All that magma pushes against the crust in those parts of the world, causing it to bulge and pumping heat up through the ground.
That heat offered scientists the first clues that the Antarctic plume exists…
Despite its apparent icy stillness, Antarctica is alive with motion. Huge masses of frozen water slip, slide and grind with enormous pressure against the continent below, their constant motion lubricated by a complex system of rivers and lakes below the ice.
But in Marie Byrd Land, researchers found even more of that activity than the known regional heat sources could explain. Something else was cooking the ice shelf. About 30 years ago, researchers first began to suspect that a magma plume might be the cause, given the domed shape of the crust in that area.
Now, scientists know for sure.
Read More: There’s a Huge Plume of Magma Bulging Against Antarctica
Please like, share, subscribe and comment.
Abortion Lobby Denies Science Concerning Beginning of Human Life
In a bold new article, abortion advocates attack President Trump’s HHS plan promising protection for Americans “at every stage of life, beginning at conception” by claiming that “life doesn’t begin at conception.”
Simply put, there is no missing link in the cycle of life, life is a continuum. There are no mystical jumper cables that can somehow shock life into inanimate tissue. No biology book ever published identifies where life ceases to exist before and after fertilization. The Sperm containing the DNA from the father is alive, the Egg containing the DNA from the mother is alive, the fertilized egg is alive. At no period does life not exist. Conception is the creating of a new and unique life. A life that is totally separate from the mother’s. The baby at no time is ever “part of a woman’s body.” The baby is hidden from the mother’s body by the placenta and amniotic fluid in order to protect the baby from the mother’s antibodies.
If the baby was part of a woman’s body, it would be impossible to have male children, babies with blood types that conflict with the mother’s, or surrogate mothers. Facts are, the baby is as much a part of the father’s body as it is the mothers, the mother is simply carrying and feeding the child internally, but they are completely separated. It is undeniable that if natural or accidental causes do not end the life a baby, the baby will be born and live a life as a new and unique individual. It is undeniable that an abortion intentionally ends that life. If your mother had had an abortion, you would not be reading this article right now. Be thankful your mother didn’t buy into the lie that your new and unique life didn’t begin at conception…because it did.
- If men delivered the babies, I doubt many women would favor abortion.
- If stopping a baby from continued development and eventual birth isn’t killing a child, what is it?
- Why is a father charged with murder if his actions cause the death of his unborn child?
- If a surrogate mother decides to abort a baby which shares none of her DNA, how can that possibly not be murder?
- If a baby is born prematurely, and its life depends on and is enclosed within a life support system, is that baby then “part of the life support system?” Would unplugging the life support not be considered murder?
Read More: Abortion Lobby Denies Science Concerning Beginning of Human Life