The True and False of Climate Change

Written by M. Ray Thomasson, Lee C. Gerhard

First let us state that the authors are avid environmentalists. Every geologist we know loves nature and “The out-of-doors” and wants to protect and preserve our planet.

Concern for the environment should not be confused with climate change.

The popular media have been expounding on climate change for many years without considering the underlying data that could substantiate their presentation of the issue.

The authors present a “CO2 is not the problem” approach to challenging the media about climate change, and look forward to a “CO2 is the problem” response.

The Scientific Method is used in all scientific endeavors. It takes many shapes and forms, and involves three principal steps: After finding scientific data that suggest a particular outcome, the scientists:

  1. Construct a Hypothesis. The scientists state both the hypothesis and the resulting prediction they will be testing.
  2. Test the Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment. The experiment tests whether the prediction is accurate and thus the hypothesis is supported or not. In the absence of a laboratory experiment, historical observations must be used.
  3. Analyze the Data and Draw a Conclusion. Once the experiment (observed data) is complete, collect measurements and analyze them to see if they support the hypothesis or not. If not, go back and create another hypothesis; if it does, you publish the findings so that others may test the hypothesis (replicate the experiment).

Point (1) above has been accomplished for climate change. What has been lacking in most of the Global Warming/Climate Change studies are (2) and (3). There is no substitute for objective, historical data. What follows is an attempt to refute newspaper, TV and radio opinions based on models that are badly flawed. We present a point by point discussion of what the DATA can tell us.

Any statement not backed up by DATA is an opinion and may be true, false or misleading. Computer models are opinions.

What the Media Commonly Says
• That temperatures are higher than they have been in the last 200 years: TRUE (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Temperatures have been rising from the last Little Ice Age for about the last 300 years. However, if history is to repeat itself, the temperature may well start falling as it did after both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. Modified from [1]. That temperatures are higher than they have ever been. FALSE (Figure 2).

Figure 2: We are in a glacial era and happen to be in a warmer interglacial time period. It has been much hotter most of the last 10 thousand years. We are in a general cold period. Modified and redrafted from [2,3].

That Global Warming has Caused:
• Number of hurricanes to increase – FALSE (Figure 3)

Figure 3: There has been no increase in hurricane frequency. Redrafted from National Hurricane Center 2015. There have been more droughts – FALSE (Figure 4). • There have been more wet seasons – FALSE (Figure 4).

Figure 4: There has been no change in the frequency of extreme and moderate drought. There has been no increase of moderate to extreme wet areas. From National Climate Data Center/NESDIS/NOAA [4]. The strength of hurricanes has increased – FALSE (Figure 5). • The number of violent hurricanes has increased – FALSE (Figure 5).

Figure 5: There has been no change in hurricane strength and frequency. Redrafted from [5]. That CO2 is the major greenhouse gas – FALSE (Figure 6).

Figure 6: This graph shows greenhouse gases’ contribution to greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up 95% which swamps CO2 as a greenhouse gas and dominates the greenhouse effect. CO2 makes up approximately 5% and human’s activity makes up only 0.4% of the total. Modified from [6]. • That CO2 increases will drive temperatures to catastrophic temperature levels. FALSE (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Because of the inverse logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature (Arrhenius 1896), as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, each Part Per Million (ppm) has less of an effect on temperature. [7] suggest that doubling the current concentration of CO2 (now approximately 400 ppm) would raise temperature 1 ° C. We estimate that would take 190+ years. In that amount of time many of the other factors affecting temperature will have changed the global temperature pattern. Modified from [8]. That CO2 is the main driver of temperature increase – FALSE (Figures 8,9).

Figure 8: The apparent coincidence of the correlation of CO2 and temperature is shown. When Gore used this correlation to “Prove” CO2 drove temperature the ice core research discussed below had already been done. Modified from [9].

Figure 9 a,b,c: These 3 figures depict termination of the three last glacial terminations. Dating younger to older warming periods Termination I begins at approximately 12,000 years Before Present (BP). Termination II began at about 126.000 years BP. Termination III started at about 238,000 years BP.

Quoting from Fischer et.al., “Atmospheric CO2 concentrations show a similar increase for all three terminations, connected to a climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere. The time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to [previous] temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.” That CO2 levels are higher today than they have ever been – FALSE (Figure 10)

Figure 10: This graph shows that CO2 levels have been many magnitudes higher in the past and, that they are at extremely low levels today. In fact, they are some of the lowest levels of CO2 in geologic history. Note that there is no gross correlation between CO2 and temperatures, so heat is a short-term driver. Something else has had a long term effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Redrafted from [10,11].

That the sea level is rising. TRUE (Figure 11). • That the rate of sea level rise is increasing. FALSE. (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Sea level is generally rising as temperature has increased since coming out of the depth of the Little Ice Age about 300 years ago. As temperatures have risen, glaciers are melting. Current variations of sea level are well within natural variability and show no evidence of an accelerating rate, which is required to support the CO2 -induced, global warming hypothesis. In fact, the rate may be decelerating. Redrafted from [12]. That changes in solar irradiance can be ignored. FALSE (Figure12).

Figure 12: Many astrophysicists believe solar activity is extremely important in affecting temperature. Although correlation does not prove causation, there is a general positive correlation between solar irradiance and temperature. Redrafted from [13,14].

That we can ignore the effects of the sun. FALSE (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Solar activity predicts (along with sun spots), that the world will start (plunge) into a very cold period in about 2030 and probably go into a Maunder-type cold spell in 2170 to 2210. These calculations are made with extreme accuracy by atmospheric physicists. Note the extensions below an arbitrary line define each of the major cold periods. Redrafted from [15]. • That we can ignore sun spots. FALSE. (Figures 14-17)

Figure 14: Recent changes in the sun’s internal conveyor belt suggest possible cooling. Redrafted from [16].

Figure 15: This graph shows maximum and minimum sun spots. These are a natural phenomenon and have approximately 11 year cycles. Redrafted from NASA/ESA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory; Modified from [8].

Figure 16: This graph shows that historically the sun spot numbers increased as the sun came out of the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715), a time when the earth was in the throes of the Little Ice Age and there were no sun spots. The correlation between cold intervals and diminished strength of sun spots has held true since the start of keeping records of sun spots. The prediction made in 2006, shown on the dashed line on Figure 16, is correct as shown by the diminished sun spot maximum on (Figure 17). The sun spot cycles are numbered 6-26. Redrafted from [17].

Figure 17: Sunspots are diminishing in intensity as was predicted in 2006. This suggests we are headed toward a cooler climate. Redrafted from [18]. That CO2 is a pollutant. FALSE (Figures 18,19).

Figure 18: CO2 is used for growth enhancement in greenhouses. Along with oxygen, CO2 is critical to man’s survival because plants will die without it, and they flourish with it. Redrafted from [19-21].

Figure 19: Map of greening of the Earth owing to increased CO2 . The increase in CO2 has been beneficial as CO2 starts to recover from a near record low. The world is greening because of the modest increase in CO2 . Redrafted after [22].

That temperature and CO2 go up together. FALSE (Figure 20).

Figure 20: This graph shows the most recent relationship between CO2 and temperature. CO2 is steadily increasing because of somewhat higher temperatures, land use, ocean activity, and fossil fuel use. Temperature has flattened out (and may go down). Satellite atmospheric temperature measurements provided by RSS, plus CO2 measurements from NOAA. That models can be used to predict climate. FALSE (Figure 21)

Figure 21: Computer model results are plotted vs. actual data from observations, 1975-2015. The models have been consistently wrong and yet major policy decisions have been and are still being based on their results. Redrafted from [23]. That the so-called pause from 1998 to the present in the increase in temperature is not real. FALSE (Figure 22).

Figure 22: These graphs show the data from all 4 major keepers of data. Both NASA and Hadley HadCRUT have had scandals. Remember Climategate at Hadley a few years ago and NASA has been shown to fiddle the data making older data lower than actual and later data higher than actual. Nonetheless one can discern a definite flat period in all four curves from 1998 (an extra powerful NINO) to 2017. The spike in 2016 is another very powerful NINO. Data is taken from (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk, http://data.giss.nasa.gov, http://data.remss.com/msu, http://vortex.nsstc. uah.edu ,) There is a 97% consensus that humans are causing climate to change: False.

Figure 23: The media make much of what they term a “Scientific consensus.” There are many scientific disciplines that contribute to our understanding about climate change. These include physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, meteorologists, geologists, climate scientists, oceanographers, geophysicists, and others. All of these were ignored in the analysis.

The Global Warming Petition Project resulted in 31,487 individuals with scientific backgrounds (9,029 with PhD degrees, and 7,157 with MS degrees) who approved the following statement “There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produces many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” The “97% consensus” is based on 77 scientists out of 10,257 questioned and 3,146 responses [24,25].

Out of 77 climate scientists, 75 answered “Yes” to the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” They were not asked whether human carbon dioxide emissions control temperature (Figure 23). The term “Significant” was undefined. Climate change can best be understood within the larger context of geological history.

In the Doran and Zimmerman study, there were 103 responses from geologists, and 53% of those answered “No” to that same question. The authors believe the 97% scientific consensus promoted by the media is a myth. Summary The authors believe that truth will always come out in any research project that has a scientific basis.

We have shown that CO2 is not a pollutant, but instead is a critical source of plant food and therefore animal life (and man) on this earth. We have shown that CO2 does not have a significant negative effect on weather patterns or on temperature. We have shown the forecast climate models to all be wrong.

More importantly, we have presented evidence that emphasizes the importance of climate control by the sun. Several lines of evidence suggest that the global climate will be going into a colder phase in the near future, and may last for decades. It is with a great degree of concern that we point out that population is projected to increase from seven to nine billion people by the year 2100.

Will the projected increase in CO2 be sufficient fertilizer to counter balance a cooler climate in the world in which more food will be needed to feed our burgeoning population?

References

  1. Ljungqvist FC (2010) A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler 92: 339-351.

  2. Alley RB (2000) The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 213-226.

  3. Cuffey KM, GD Clow (1997) Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition. Journal of Geophysical Research 102: 26383-26396.

  4. National Climate Data Center/NESDIS/NOAA 2017 National Hurricane Center 2017

  5. Robinson Arthur B, Robinson Noah, Soon Willie (2007) “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Petition Project website. Published by Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12: 79-90.
  6. Hieb M (2003) Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers, in Hieb M, Hieb H 2003 Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective.
  7. Lindzen Richard S, Choi Yong-Sang (2009) On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophys Res Lttrs 36: L16705.
  8. Archibald D, Donze T (2008) “Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States”, Int’l Conference on Climate Change.
  9. Petit JR, Jouzel J, Raynaud D, NI Barkov, JM Barnola, et al. (1999) “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica”. Nature. 399: 429-436.
  10. Berner Robert A (1990) Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Over Phanerozoic Time. Science 249: 1382-1386.
  11. Berner Robert A, kothavala Z (1994) 3Geocarb II: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2
    over Phanerozoic Time. American Journal of Science 294: 56-91.
  12. Boretti AA (2012) Short term comparison of climate model predictions and satellite altimeter measurements of sea levels. Coastal Engineering 60: 319-322.
  13. Hoyt DV, KH Schatten (1997) The Role of the Sun in Climate Change: Oxford University Press, New York, 279 p.
  14. Bond Gerard, Bernd Kromer, Juerg Beer, Raimund Muscheler, Michael N Evans (2001) Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene. Science 294: 2130-2136.
  15. Landscheidt Theodor (2003) New Little Ice Age instead of Global Warming? Energy and Environment 14: 327-350.
  16. Satellite atmospheric temperature measurements provided by RSS, plus CO2 measurements from NOAA Science@NASA, Long Range Solar Forecast, 2006.
  17. Abdusamatov KhI (2007) Optimal Prediction of the Peak of the Next 11-Year Activity Cycle and of the Peaks of Several Succeeding Cycles on the Ba sis of Long-Term Variations in the So Lar Radius or Solar Constant. Kinematika i Fizika Nebes. Allerton Press 23: 141-147.
  18. SILSO graphics (http://side.be/silso) Royal Observatory of Belgium 2017 July 5.
  19. Idso CD, Idso KE (2000) Forecasting world food supplies: The impact of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Technology 7S: 33-55.
  20. Idso Craig D, Idso Sherwood B (2007) “Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion” Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
  21. Idso Craig D, Idso Sherwood B (2011) “Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path”.
  22. Donohue RJ, Roderick ML, McVicar TR, Farquhar GD (2013) Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments 40: 3031-3035.

Ray Thomasson, Lee C. Gerhard, The True and False of Climate Change Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences Thomasson MR and Gerhard LC. J Earth Environ Sci 7: 169


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.

Comments (13)

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    “1. Construct a Hypothesis. The scientists state both the hypothesis and the resulting prediction they will be testing.”

    Does the Hypotheis violate the laws of physics? If the answer is “yes”, go back and get a new Hypothesis.
    This was not done with the “global warming” hoax.

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      Spot on Geran ! .. That is exactly where it all ends for me!

  • Avatar

    Bogdan Majkic

    |

    There is specific way to test all that. Not sure you guys understand how Planet works or our Solar System. Also Lab test can prove what we really have. I will not tell you how to do that until you ask for it. My personal opinion is that we are polluting our world in so many different ways and we do not need divided Scientists with incomplete DATA/other to give us final results. How to do the most accurate testings I can explain in 2 min. We do not understand how Sun works either so forget your DATA about that or our Solar system. We know nothing really to the point that we can say OK this is it and proven or true or false.

    Let’s start with this: Are we polluting our World or not???

    If we all agree on something so obvious then we are ready to take other steps and testings and action. If you are divided on this question with a so obvious answer (YES) then we have either lack of knowledge, skills or corruption in place.

    Forget your diagrams OK.

    How accurate are your measurements???

    • Avatar

      Jerry

      |

      Define what you mean by polluting.

      If you are describing the generation of co2 by human means as polluting then the answer is No.

      Co2 is not a pollutant and a higher levels of atmospheric co2 would benefit humanity due to an increase in agricultural production.

      Forget all your meaningless vague virtue signalling propaganda.

      • Avatar

        Bogdan Majkic

        |

        Oh Jerry, is that so.

        You never heard of some pollution like chemical waste for example dumped in our air and water or on land.. I do not spread any propaganda and if this is propaganda for you our conversation is over.

        CO2 in certain limits is acceptable and not the only thing we should pay attention to.

        You should know that by now.

  • Avatar

    Coral Smart

    |

    A very interesting article. Although educated I am neither physicist nor a scientist but I see the sense and agree with this article whole heartedly.
    Coral Smart

  • Avatar

    Bevan Dockery

    |

    Congratulations on a job well done. Your conclusion matches mine, namely that there is no Greenhouse Effect and no CO2 induced global warming. It puzzles me how anyone can believe that the back-radiation of a part of the Earth’s emitted infrared can increase the temperature of the Earth’s surface when it is obvious that only radiation from a hotter source can warm an object. Otherwise the radiation from everything would be heating up everything else and the Universe would have become an entity consisting of heat energy only.

  • Avatar

    Donb

    |

    There never was AGW, it has been a scam since day one!

    • Avatar

      Bevan Dockery

      |

      Temperature change clearly precedes CO2 change because temperature determines the rate of generation of CO2. See:
      https://www.climateauditor.com
      and
      http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_September_2019.pdf

      Hence it is impossible for the later CO2 change to be the cause of the earlier temperature change proving beyond doubt that CO2 induced global warming is a fraud. Yet national parliaments around the World continue to pass legislation to mitigate against CO2 emissions and climate change. What sort of a daft world do we live in ?

  • Avatar

    Christian Loosli

    |

    Hi and thanks for explaining it so clear and understandable! I do not kwow how the universe funktions scintifically but how humans work. When there is so much money to gain, with a new green deal, to save the world even by forcing us to pay only, without consulting us democraticly and it is so promoted by Billionaires than it is defenitely not out of love for us or the world. Politiks depend not on science but money, voters and media support. When voters vote for a lie, because thats all they allowed to hear than thats what they get. Politik makes law not science, sadly. I believe man can do better with taking care of the environment but the world dos not need man do destroy the planet or reducing mankind, natural desasters, vulkanos, floods, meteorits and iceages dos it largely. We’re quite insignifiant.

Comments are closed