Planetary Orbital Changes Better Explain Climate than CO2
Ask the IPCC to provide substantive proof that what has been observed is caused by the 1% human CO2 additions to the trillions of tonnes circulating through the atmosphere, are not precipitated, are not used by photosynthesis, are not acidifying the colder parts of the ocean and are warming the planet instead.
(FYI, CO2 bonds with water inversely proportional to temperature to form H2CO3 (carbonic acid) that gives rain its 5.6 pH)
As Carl Sagan is reported to have said in relation to predictions of a 9th planet near the edge of the solar system:
‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.
I have not seen any evidence of how 0.04% CO2 circulating through the atmosphere can warm the planet if most of it cools the upper mesosphere to -100C and the oxygen produced by photosynthesis forming ozone cools the lower stratosphere to -55C. I cannot see either, how a 0.01% increase in CO2 as measured in its tropical updraft can warm the entire planet by 1 degree C.
Below are two sets of plots of the NASA GISS GLOTI zonal anomalies from 1880–2016 with the first 21 years of the Antarctic temperatures left off, as these were not observed. The first set is as provided by NASA, the second set is with a negative adjustment I have made of 0.01C p.a. from 1959. It is the 1st year of measurements of CO2 in overnight dew at 3.4 km altitude at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, where the volcanic gas emissions contain 48% CO2 and where the updraft of CO2 toward the mesopause is measured.
Over the same period, the equatorial speed of Earth’s rotation of 1,677 km/h has increased slightly, as shown in the Wikipedia graph further down of the changing length of day (LOD) values for almost the same period of the CO2 measurements. Below that are the Jupiter and Saturn perihelion distances from NASA JPL Horizons ephemeris from 1856–2094.
Notice any correlations? When the Jupiter perihelion values go down the temperatures go up and the LOD values go down. The opposite happens with the Saturn perihelion values. I trust the NASA ephemerides and the IERS LOD values a lot more than the IPCC and its minions, don’t you?
On second thoughts, maybe this -0.015 p.a. correction of the zonal anomalies is the better one. The number conforms to the 1.5C carbon reduction promise by 2050 by the IPCC. They know what has been added.
Please note too that the mid-1970s cooling is better pronounced in the global means and that the present warming conforms to the warming after 1935 by the 84-year orbital period of Uranus.
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 To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
tom0mason
| #
And the main reason for the Earth warming up —
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
It’s the sun what did it!
Reply
Tom O
| #
Very interesting, really. It truly is amazing how when you look for natural causes for the variations in Earth’s apparent temperatures and climate, there is no end to them. Makes it even more intriguing as to why the UN wants to “not go there.” Well, not really, I suppose because obviously, if everything was caused by natural events, they couldn’t use it to drive one world governance “for the good of GAIA and man.”
I once thought about the CO2 issue and temperature as related to your home. IF green house gases acted like insulation, thus helping to maintain the temperature within the house, you hardly really notice the difference between 2 inches of insulation and 4 inches or 8 inches when the furnace isn’t running, or, if you will, when the heating source is just sufficient to maintain a moderate temperature. Yet as the furnace comes on, or you add another bit of heating, you see a change in the temperature. The insulation doesn’t heat the house, but it helps retain the heat within.
Now if you are increasing the insulation from, say 4 inches to 4.1 inches or even 4.5 inches, the heat retained would be virtually unnoticeable. But if you increase the source of heat, that is immediately noticeable. On our planet, the source of heat is our local star we call the Sun. I suspect that yes, increasing the CO2 probably allows us to retain a tiny bit more of the heat, but I also have no doubt that IF global warming is happening, it is because the furnace is running hotter than before. And when the furnace switches from high burn to low burn, that tiny bit of “insulation” may delay the cooling for a little bit, and that is about all you can expect from it. In other words, if natural affects are moving planet Earth towards an ice age, maybe we will hang on for an extra year or two before the reality of the ice age comes home.
Now in the minds of some, perhaps a one world government could help secure the future of mankind by culling the weaker members of the race or forcing depopulation by some means to bring the total population to within the limits the remaining livable land can support. And perhaps that would be the best way to do it, but I question whether there is anyone on the face of the planet that would be impartial enough, and could handle the ethical and moral pressure of deciding who has the right to live and who has to die. You know, I question, to a degree if even God could do that. Perhaps that is why He gave us free will in the first place, so that soul wrecking responsibility wouldn’t have to fall on Him.
I suspect that, in the end, we will be faced with a future that will be exactly what it would be, no matter what we do. If man, as a whole truly has a great fault, it is his arrogance of believing that he is important. Earth is not a “fragile thing,” nor is its environment, climate, and biosphere. Yes it is possible that we can damage it, but there is no true likelihood that we can do it great harm.
Reply