Man Made Climate Change? Where’s the Evidence?
After decades of alarm calls over the impact of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) on global temperatures and climate change, a glaring lack of factually demonstrated and scientifically proven evidence remains.
The evidence presented has been based on computer modelling of temperatures from global weather stations, a larger percentage of which are sited in towns and cities and no data, numerous studies show, for the 70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of oceans, seas and lakes; satellite measurements are routinely adjusted to take account of anomalies and sea level rise alarm, expressed in measurements of millimetres per century, does not quantify in that tidal gauges are subjected to landmass upheavals and/or subsidence, none of which can be taken to represent empirical evidence.
The very concept of a global temperature has been called into question by numerous studies and considering that there are no data for the 70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of oceans, seas and lakes the concept that a global temperature can be derived from a few thousand weather stations is rather dubious.
Observing the ever-changing high and low pressure patterns – specifically in this case with regard to the UK – it becomes clear that most of the measured temperatures on land are the direct result of the direction from whence the wind has come. Huge hot air masses are routinely blown from the Sahara/cold air masses from Siberia/temperate air from the Atlantic.
Nitrogen and Oxygen could also be seen to be greenhouse gases since they retain heat to some degree before cooling, whereas water vapour and carbon dioxide are actually cooling gases as they are the only gases that can emit the infrared radiation to the void of space.
Sending that same radiation back to the surface of the earth can not make the earth any warmer than it was in the first place – c/f the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Neither is there evidence of ongoing and catastrophic melting of ice at the Arctic, Antarctic or Greenland icecaps – the only evidence indicates a cyclical nature of melting and freezing.
The list of climate related alarm calls is endless, so suffice to ask for evidence that can stand the scrutiny of scientific investigation, not the incidental, subjective and emotionally charged evidence that is presented on an almost daily basis by those who seek to control our lives by demonizing the emissions of CO2 from human sources.
The UN IPCC* scientists sets human emissions contribution of CO2 at 4{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of total atmospheric CO2 that is, only 16 parts per million of CO2 is of human origin. See attached graphic.
There remains a need to establish what forces were at play predating human presence when atmospheric CO2 levels were higher and temperatures 2-3 degrees higher than at present and the how and why creating that situation.
* https://tech-know-group.com/archives/IPCC_deception.pdf
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
geran
| #
“Sending that same radiation back to the surface of the earth can not make the earth any warmer than it was in the first place…”
EXACTLY!
(And, the graphic was cool, also.)
Reply
Hans Schreuder
| #
Thanks Geran, it’s all so simple, yet that simplicity does not provide grants. Sad but true.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Hans and Geran,
“Sending that same radiation back to the surface of the earth can not make the earth any warmer than it was in the first place – c/f the Laws of Thermodynamics.”
But it can stop (or slow) the air, surface, and soil from cooling. Evidence: Figures 4&6 (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory/)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Hans and Geran,
I should have added that the cause of the return is not primarily the gases of the atmosphere. The primary cause is cloud (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-three/).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Jerry, also what you should have added was that believing back-radiation “can stop (or slow) the air, surface, and soil from cooling”, is just desperate grasping at straws.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
Evidently you haven’t carefully studied and compared figures 3&4 and 5&6 of ((https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory/) or you do not accept actual data as being the foundation of science, which must be explained.
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
Jerry, evidently you believe those poorly constructed, inconclusive charts are “actual data”, rather than just more desperate grasping at straws.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
Why don’t you go to the USCRN data files (https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/) for the Corvallis site for the days of the data which is cited and make better graphical figures for yourself and then report back?
And if you want to challenge the validity of their data, why don’t you ask if you can set up your own weather station at the FWS Finley Reserve to make the ‘correct’ measurements?
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
Jerry, I don’t have to go to any more effort to show you desperately grasping at straws, than your own comments.
Hans Schreuder
| #
CORRECTION RELATING TO THE GRAPHIC: an alert reader pointed out a calculation mistake in my original graphic pertaining to the percentage of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, which is 0.00012% and not 0.000012% The graphic will be corrected in the course of the day. Fortunately, the error did not make any difference to the size of the red dot, just a factor of 10 in the result of the calculation. Thanks much for bringing this issue to my attention.
Reply
Gymbo
| #
All of the science relating to blackbody radiation hinges on the absolute fact that the only evidence we have is that NOTHING prevents a blackbody at absolute temperature T from emitting power = sigma T^4 no matter what the temperature of the surrounding environment – according to the only evidence we have it ALWAYS emits sigma T^4.
The net form of the SB equation explicitly states it emits sigma T^4 – only the NET power is affected.
If heat doesn’t transfer from cold to hot – it doesn’t – the power emitted to a body from a colder environment cannot prevent the body from emitting sigmaT^4 and can never induce warming.
If you claim it “slows” the rate of cooling you are claiming that the portion of the cooler surrounding radiation is heating the warmer body which is always emitting sigmaT^4 at any temperature and that completely disagrees with all the concepts of thermodynamics – heat flowing from cold to hot.
Reply
Squidly
| #
“slows cooling” .. hahaha .. more sophistry and bullshit. Cannot … let me repeat … cannot “slow cooling” .. go back to LoT training.
Reply
Hans Schreuder
| #
Quite right Geran and thank also to Gymbo for his further illustration that the delay in cooling is a nonsense concept based on incorrect, illogical thinking, just as the Copenhagen Interpretation about a cat being alive and dead at the same time!
Reply
Squidly
| #
FACT: “Heat” cannot “pile”
Reply
Gymbo
| #
You clearly have little appreciation of thermodynamics – the only dynamics you appear to grasp is the detrimental linguidynamics – the art of insult !
Reply
Frank Bellini
| #
For this retired environmental scientist and geologist the most telling data is sea level trend. Two NOAA stations are representative for the Atlantic and Pacific, respectively. The station at the top of Manhattan in Battery Park, NYC, is among the oldest data set for the US, dating back to the 1850s and at an intra-continental plate location where the land mass is relatively stable. The trend represented is an absolute straight line. There is no inflection or deviation from that trend. If there was indeed an affect from man’s activities, it would surely present itself in that data set. The time frame represents that of the entire Industrial Revolution as well as the more recent period of rapid increase of atmospheric CO2. World population has increased from 1 billion to 7 billion during that time frame.
As a confirmation, also consider similar data from Honalulu Hawaii. That NOAA station records data back to 1905 wit the same strictly linear trend evident.
Data plotted for those two stations are found here:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750#tabmeantrend
and here:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340
Reply
Squidly
| #
Adding a gas with very high emissivity (ie: CO2) to our atmosphere cannot possibly “slow cooling” .. in fact, the result would be the opposite. increased cooling
Reply
Gymbo
| #
How do you explain this then
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/nfrared-emission-spectrum-as-observed-by-the-Nimbus-4-satellite-outside-the-Earths_fig3_301245791
Reply
Gymbo
| #
How do you explain this then ?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/nfrared-emission-spectrum-as-observed-by-the-Nimbus-4-satellite-outside-the-Earths_fig3_301245791
I’d like to be enlightened.
Reply
Gymbo
| #
How do you explain this satellite graph of emissions then ?
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
It is real.
I’d like to be enlightened.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Gymbo
“How do you explain this satellite graph of emissions then ?”
Simple!
It shows the same spectrum that has been there from 1850 since there is no reason it should have altered. Basically no change since 1850, that is unless you have unarguable evidence to show it is otherwise.
Reply
Gymbo
| #
You haven’t explained anything at all – do you even know anything about spectral emissions graphs at all ?
There is ample evidence that the Earth’s emission spectra has changed significantly since the satellite era monitoring commenced some 50 + years ago.
Do you assert that satellite emission spectra monitoring is wrong ?
As for the stupidity of claiming knowledge of emission spectra for Earth back to 1850 – well no-one needs to highlight just how stupid such a claim is.
Your pseudo answer shows something is simple alright !
Reply
Gymbo
| #
” .. unless you have unarguable evidence to show it is otherwise.”
The graph on this site indicates a significant change in the period from 1979 to 2005 when the Nimbus program ceased.
All the satellite programs that continue today show there is a significant change over recent decades – RSS, UAH, Comet etc.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/
Or do you think they are all wrong ?
Reply
tom0mason
| #
So Gymbo,
You trash-out some more technical grout, apparently attempting to show CO2 is a problem. It ain’t and never will be! History shows this. Over the last 100 years of this planet moving out of the LIA the temperature has risen less than 1°C. This is NOT a problem. Get some perspective Gymbo, CO2 is NOT a problem. Stop hyping-up the significance. There is NO catastrophe looming, not even a hint of one. Look at the history of this planet, look at the history of the biosphere and consider what is all this technical dross shows — NOTHING!
What is wrong with the planet warming? Only a jerk of the first order would want us back in the climate of the LIA and if (and only if) CO2 prevents the planet from slipping back there, where death and disease where rife, then lets stay warm and burn fuel.
Historically EVERY TIME the planet was a degree or three above the current temperature life THRIVED.
Only a sociopath would wish this planet not to warm or have a little more CO2.
Only a fool would think that CO2 levels, or temperature or any other climate parameter should not vary, or that humans govern how this planet’s climate changes. We do not. Our major influence on climate is with changes in land use, not fuel use. The sun controls the climate’s seasonal trajectory, the ocean cycles modify the outcome, the DAMP atmosphere radiates the excess energy off the planet erratically over the day/night cycle. CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere a bit player at best, its effects lost in the noise of all other other natural processes.
Now Gymbo, give-up you hyping-up the significance of CO2. I do not believe your ‘evidence’ is worth a spit! You are irrational in you beliefs as the coming solar mediated cooling will show. As the spectrum you link to will vary very, very little but the global temperature continue will drop.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
The bottom line is that climate changes, it always has, and humankind’s contribution to that change is at best very minor to vanishingly small.
So put your over-elaborate sciency technological images away, go outside and look at the sky. If there are clouds then there is water visible in the atmosphere, if there are not clouds obvious, there still is water in the atmosphere. Every second of every day millions of tons of water hangs in the air, moving truly massive amounts of energy about the globe. And that is it, not the ridiculous notions about about CO2 ‘holding heat’ or any other mythology that rules climate and its changes. Water is, was, and has always been the main overwhelming effect on weather and climate.
As this paper from Indrani Roy of the University of Exeter (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2018.00136/full) clearly explains, greater consideration of natural factors in modern climate change should be made. The press release from the University of Exeter of 10 October 2018, the first line explains so much when it says :
Role of “natural factors” on recent climate change are underestimated, research shows…
and a quote from the end of the paper says …
Reply
Jeff o
| #
GYMBO
The graphs you REFERENCE are from a perfect black body which the earth is not . The co2 aboorbtion you see is signature absorption. All The energy absorbed by co2 gas is readmitted in slightly different spectra, but in total in terms of energy……a good physics site is nov83.com…regards …Jeff o
Reply
Jeff o
| #
GYMBO
The graphs you REFERENCE are from a perfect black body which the earth is not . The co2 aboorbtion you see is signature absorption. All The energy absorbed by co2 gas is readmitted in slightly different spectra, but in total in terms of energy……a good physics site is nov83.com…regards …Jeff o
Reply