‘Man-made warming’ demolished in 500 words
The United Nations IPCC says ongoing warming is due to man’s CO2 emissions, hence ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (AGW). The 3 pillars on which they base this claim are unscientific and quickly disproved.
IPCC’s Three Pillars
PILLAR I: Earth’s average surface temperature and man’s CO2 emissions have both risen since 1850, so CO2 must have caused the warming
Five disproofs …
- What else has risen? The Sun’s magnetic output, affecting cloudiness (Svensmark), more than doubled from 1901 to 1991 (Lockwood), to its highest peak in 10,000 years (Higgs 1).
In those last 10,000 years …
- simple visual cross-correlation shows changes in temperature lagged 60-160 years behind solar-output changes, due to the ocean’s vast heat capacity and slow mixing (Higgs 1, 2) &
- … temperature and CO2 were uncorrelated, until their joint rise from the late 1800s.
- CO2 is still rising (NOAA), but Earth has cooled since 2016 (Met. Office). Every passing day not ‘warmest ever’ for that date, at multiple sites worldwide, embarrasses the IPCC.
- Warming since 1910 paused 1945-75 (30 years) and 1998-2012 but CO2 kept rising
PILLAR II: Global warming’s continuance despite the Sun’s weakening after 1991 absolves the Sun and incriminates CO2
Disproof …
This mismatch is simply due to the oceanic time-lag, currently about 60 years. Thus global warming will continue (with ups and downs, mainly due to the Sun’s 11-year cycles) until around 2050, about 60 years after the Sun’s 1991 grand peak (Higgs 2).
Pillar II was asserted in IPCC’s 2013 ‘Fifth Assessment Report’, Chapter 10 (IPCC 1 p.887, co-author Lockwood [see (1) above], citing 4 of his own papers). But IPPC already knew about the lag, Chapter 3 having stated the “ocean’s huge heat capacity and slow circulation lend it significant thermal inertia” (IPCC 2 p.266).
PILLAR III: Sea level (SL) for the last few thousand years varied less than 25cm, so the 30cm SL rise since 1850 proves abnormal warming by CO2
Disproof …
The 25 cm claim (only “medium confidence”; IPCC 3 p.385) is based on selected evidence (Higgs 3) and on dismissal of the famed 1961 SL curve (Fairbridge; Wiki) with SL oscillations of 2 to 5 metres in the last 6,000 years, confirmed by dozens of later geologists worldwide, and lately with very strong archaeological support (Higgs 4, 5, 6).
Conclusions
- That’s it. That’s all they have. Be surprised.
- The Sun was by far the main driver of global temperature for the last 10,000 years.
- CO2 is innocent; it has no climate effect; the simultaneous rise in temperature and CO2 is pure accident; CO2’s residual ‘greenhouse effect’ is effectively nil (Higgs 7, 8).
- The IPCC urgently needs to consult geologists (Higgs 9, 10).
- Another Sun-driven large sea-level rise is predictable (Higgs 11).
References
Fairbridge 1961 sea-level curve, latest revision 1977, fig. 2c here … https://www.nature.com/articles/268413a0
Higgs 1 2020 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340869622
Higgs 2 2020 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341078096 Higgs 3 2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336414520 Higgs 4 2020 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339875642 Higgs 5 2020 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338556345 Higgs 6 2017 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316601390 Higgs 7 2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332245803 Higgs 8 2020 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340869622 Higgs 9 2018 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331928229
Higgs 10 2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331974185 Higgs 11 2020 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341597747 IPCC 1 2013
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf IPCC 2 2013
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf IPCC 3 2013 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf Lockwood 1999 http://www.personal.reading.ac.uk/~ym901336/pdfs/170_Lockwoodetal_nature.pdf Meteorological Office UK 2020
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/monitoring/index.html
NOAA 2020 https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
Svensmark 2007 https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/48/1/1.18/220765 Wiki 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Fairbridge
Question everything
Download the PDF at www.researchgate.net
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
geran
| #
The labeling appears incorrect:
“1”
“1”
“Pillar III”
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks, Geran, now fixed.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Nice, concise article. Sometimes less is more 🙂
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
Here’s manmade (CO2) warming demolished in 19 words:
CO2 can’t cause warming of anything because its radiation wavelength of 15 microns (-80C) can’t melt an ice cube.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.htm
Reply
Macha
| #
TL. This is THE most telling fact. Intensity matters and why UV burns when IR is mostly benign. -80C.
Cheers
Reply
Alan
| #
The link does not work.
Reply
CD Marshall
| #
co2 can emit at higher Wl than that, however. Its peak absorption is 15 microns but it can emit at higher levels as it is bumped up by hotter molecules like N2 and O2. That’s where a whole load of confusion comes in. The already warmed atmosphere (by conduction/convection/advection) heats CO2, CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere it helps emit the heat from the atmosphere to cool it off faster. Climate science has it backwards, as far as I am following this anyway.
I’ll be happy to stand corrected or even sit down with a cup of coffee and be corrected.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Can you explain how the oceanic time-lag works physically, not statistically?
Using heat capacity, to get a peak 60 years later, would dilute the amplitude of that peak into almost nothing.
Reply
CD Marshall
| #
Geothermal DOES keep oceans warmer than they would normally be so adding solar energy on top of that would be sustainable over 10-60-100-120 years I would think? That math is beyond my skills offhand.
“The natural climate cycle is 60 years. 30 years of zonal weather patterns associated with system warming, followed by 30 years of meridianal weather patterns associated with system cooling.”
I’d assume one pushes the other from hemisphere to hemisphere. Anyone who knows this stuff feel free to jump in.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
The ocean is not a battery.
It’s not like a phone you charge now and then turn on 30/60 years later.
Energy is used in the here and now.
Reply
CD Marshall
| #
Hurricanes and Typhoons would strongly disagree in how that energy is used in the here and now.
An Earthquake is energy expended in the hear and now, the tsunami that strikes miles away is still the process of that energy moving through the oceans.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Yes, but these energies are not suppressed (stored) only to manifest themselves 60 years later. They propagate in the here and now. Their propagation doesn’t refute me. The oceans do not store little bits of extra unexpressed heat, accumulate it and then emit it en masse 60 years later.
Heat capacity allows for moderation but that’s all.
CD Marshall
| #
That is an interesting question. How does energy absorbed become heat 60 years later?
That contradicts the Heat Engine of the 2nd LoT. Doesn’t that directly contradict the Carnot Cycle?
Anyone?
CD Marshall
| #
Zoe the thing is about the ocean at the equator is it is constantly being fed thermal energy 24 hours a day across the globe just not at the same point, but at that increased level of solar energy could it be enough to maintain and slowly build temperature like a giant kettle of slowly warming water?
Storms take a long time to form.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Zoe,
The energy of matter can be classified as either potential energy or kinetic energy Potential energy of matter is due to the matter’s position and kinetic energy of matter is due to the matter’s motion. A stored mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas in a closed container is non-equilibrium system of stored potential energy. It only takes a ‘spark’ to convert the potential energy into kinetic energy by a very rapid reaction we commonly term an explosion.
Ponder this.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply