Global climate change from a realistic, non-political point of view.

-Morgan Wright

CHAPTER 1. SEA LEVEL RISE

Figure 1. Sea level rise at San Francisco for the past century and a half. It is linear, which means rising in a straight line, with no acceleration of rise. The rate is a constant 189 mm (about 8 inches) per century. Data are from NOAA (the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

Figure 1b. Sea level rise for New York City's battery (southern tip of Manhattan). You will see a constant linear rate of 283 mm or 11 inches per century.

The rate is different in New York from San Francisco because of rising and falling of continental shorelines over time. We chose SF and NYC because the data go back to the 1850's, but at all locations the sea level data reveal linear trends. Other locations don't have such long histories, but can be browsed by the reader by clicking the link below. They show different rates, depending on what part of North America the measurements were taken. In Alaska, the sea levels are falling due to rebound from the previous ice age. Honolulu shows interesting data as well, since Hawaii is not part of any continental plate. It is a slower rise, 1.41 mm/year, but is linear, as usual.

Click for Honolulu (click around the site for many other locations). http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1612340

Please notice that the rate of rise has not increased in recent decades, in spite of the great increase in CO₂ during that time due to human activity. If such activity played an appreciable part in increasing sea levels, the graph would show an upward curve (acceleration) starting in the mid 20th century when anthropogenic CO₂ rise began in earnest. But the rise is a straight line without such a curve, or "hockey stick." The general trend of 7 to 12 inches per century is due to a global warming period that started over 200 years ago (see figure 3b. below). The warming ocean is expanding like a thermometer bulb, and melting ice from the poles is added to it. Both these factors make the sea level rise.

Some people believe this sea level rise is due to the CO₂ we have added to the atmosphere, but  the CO₂ level only started to change in the middle of the 20th century (see figure 1g.). Publications supporting the global warming crisis only show charts starting in the middle of the 20th century, hiding the earlier rise. This is deceptive on their parts. If global warming were caused by CO₂ changes, which began in the mid-20th century, there would be a lower rise, or no rise, in sea level before then. But the rise was just as strong as it is now, which these charts clearly demonstrate. Some people, however, continue to claim it is accelerating, but are unable to show it scientifically. Some show it fraudulently, as we will see.

Tide-gauge sea level measurements are flawed because they don't adjust for rising and falling of the continents, which is rapid enough at most locations to make a difference. But satellite data have been available since 1992 to measure the oceans globally, independent of continents. Figure 1d. shows this, and gives a more unbiased account of the rise of the ocean level, that is, the global sea level, since 1992. This information comes from satellite altimeters, which measure sea levels using coordinates similar to GPS data. We can see from the graph that the rise is still linear, without any acceleration. The rise follows almost perfectly along a straight line with a slope of 320 mm. (13 inches) per century.

Figure 1d. Satellite data 1992-present.

Study the graph below, which appeared in the September 2013 issue of National Geographic. Notice that the above (figure 1d.) satellite data, from 1992 onward, is used, but it is grafted onto tide gauge data. Note how it is asserted that this shows "clear acceleration." This is an obvious deception. We have seen that tide gauges show a linear rise, and that satellite data also show a linear rise but somewhat faster. But here they connect data from different sets onto the same graph and state that it shows acceleration! That's clearly an example of scientific fraud. It's not a hockey stick, it's a cue stick that was broken and glued back together! Unfortunately, this sort of data fudging is very typical of the way data are presented to us by people trying to prove that global warming is caused by man. The data from the satellite shows a faster rise, and they graft it onto tide gauge data, asserting that it shows acceleration, even though the tide gauge data after 1992 doesn't show any acceleration at all (see NY and SF data after 1992, on figures 1b. and 1c. or any other NOAA tide station ).

Figure 1e.

Below is a close-up showing the broken cue stick. Note how the slope suddenly changes in 1992 at the zero line where they shift from tide gauge data to satellite data:

Figure 1f. Close-up of above.

See also how they state that sea levels were not rising appreciably before the mid-1800's, but suddenly started to rise at that time "as the earth started to warm." But if the earth started to warm in the 19th century, and CO₂ levels didn't rise until the 20th century, the CO₂ rise obviously didn't cause the temperature rise. Because of this obvious fact, some people try to fabricate a more recent acceleration in the linear rise. The above cue stick trick is just one example of data fudging. We don't mean to pick on National Geographic for this fraudulent graph, it's part of the great "consensus" that use this exact same trick to claim sea level acceleration by grafting the satellite date onto tide gauge data as if this were acceptable science. But the scientific method says that all variables have to be kept equal, and combining different sets of data is anything but keeping variables equal. This goes against everything that the scientific method holds sacred. This is tantamount to an accountant using two sets of books, which would get him or her thrown in jail.

A 2011 paper by Church and White, peer reviewed and published in "Surveys in Geophysics," contains data which disputes this. That paper states that sea level rise accelerated in the 1800s, and has been linear ever since. A peer reviewed paper by Holgate in 2006 also found there was no acceleration of sea level rise in the 20th century.

The above data make it clear that sea level rise has been linear for over 150 years. Any statement that sea level rise is accelerating recently is wrong. But what's even worse, look at how sea levels suddenly rise in Figure 1e. starting in 2013 like a hockey stick in their future "predictions." This is obviously fraudulent and an attempt to sell more magazines using alarmism. Other deceivers have different motivations, but it seems that the common thread is that some people feel that fraudulent data can be used capriciously on what they consider to be a credulous public.

Figure 1g. (below) shows that humans didn't start producing much CO₂ until the middle of the 20th century. How can this account for the linear rise in sea level which started 100 years earlier, and why does this recent enormous rise in CO₂ not cause a synchronous acceleration of rise in sea levels in the 20th century? It's because CO₂ has little to do with global warming.

From Michael B. McElroy "The Atmospheric Environment" page 142. Princeton University Press c. 2002.

The arguments in this chapter show that the sea level rise of the past 160 years is linear and not caused by anthropogenic rise in CO_2, which only came in the last 60 years. If the sea level rise was caused by warming at all, it started because of a natural warming that began around 1780 or earlier.

CHAPTER 2. CO₂ RISE

Figure 2a. Carbon dioxide level during the last 550 million years. One can see from the chart that the current CO₂ level is very low. Not long before humans arrived, it was the lowest in the history of the planet. If CO₂ levels drop too low, life on earth cannot survive. Plant life depends on CO₂, and animal life depends on plant life.

Copied from "Earth System History" by Steven M. Stanley (Johns Hopkins U.), W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, copyright 2009

Humans started burning coal in earnest in the late 19th century and petroleum in the early 20th. (see 1g. above). We have increased CO₂ levels by 40% over pre-industrial levels, but still it is very low when compared to the time when mammals developed (the Cretaceous, 3 times today's level) and when dinosaurs lived (the Jurassic and Triassic, 5 times higher).

Figured 2b. (below) shows a similar graph, this one from "Ecology" by Peter Stiling, 2012 McGraw-Hill. The orange line shows the dropping CO₂ level, and once again, it shows that the CO₂ level, when humans first arrived, was the lowest in the history of the planet. Mya means million years ago.

Some people contend that the CO₂ level is higher than it's been in 800,000 years, (the red arrow in 2a.), and that we might soon reach a tipping point, without showing earlier levels that were much higher without a tipping point. Therefore, they only show charts starting in the last 800,000 years, hiding the earlier levels. This is deceptive on their parts.

CHAPTER 2B. THE ROLE OF CO₂ IN THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

The above is water in its vapor form only, and doesn't include clouds which are liquid droplets which can convert to vapor at a moment's notice and add to the greenhouse effect. CO₂ can't do this.

Obviously, 4% is an extreme case, but 2% or 1%, which are typical clear-weather levels in the tropics and normal summertime levels in temperate zones, show that H₂O is so overwhelmingly more important than CO₂ as a greenhouse gas that the latter is negligible as such. Only in the winter in temperate zones, or all year in polar zones, is the CO₂ level in the same league as water vapor and even worthy of mention as a greenhouse gas. However, the amount of sunlight under those conditions is not a significant percentage of the total amount of sunlight the earth receives annually, which mostly occurs in the tropics, subtropics, or in the summertime in temperate zones. The only other place where CO₂ levels are in the same realm as H₂O levels is the upper atmosphere, where it doesn't matter. There is very little H₂O in the stratosphere, mesosphere, or thermosphere, but the CO₂ level up there is always .04%. The greenhouse effect, as significant in warming earth's surface, however, occurs only in the troposphere, where almost all of earth's H₂O vapor is found.

The scientific consensus is that pre-industrial levels of CO₂ were 280 ppm, and that we have raised it by 120 ppm. to 400, and it is commonly held among scientists that in doing so, we have raised the temperature of the earth by 0.8°C. The general understanding among most non-scientific proponents of AGW is that the more CO₂ you add, the more greenhouse effect you will get, as if there were a linear relationship between the two. If this were true, it would mean 0.8°C for every 120 ppm. if the correlation is linear. Assuming it is, since the atmosphere currently has 400 ppm, that means 2.46°C are accounted for by CO₂. In Michael McElroy's "The Atmospheric Environment" which is used as a textbook in many colleges, it states on page 59 that earth's greenhouse effect raises earth's surface from 255°K to 303°K, or 48°C. Of the 48 degrees of greenhouse effect, we have seen that 2.46 degrees were caused by CO₂. A simple calculation shows that 2.46 out of 48 is around 5%, and if we add methane, NO₂, fluorocarbons, and SO₄, it brings it to around perhaps 6% or 7% for all the non-H₂O greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for the other 93 or 94%.

The above argument starts with the premise that CO₂ actually caused the 0.8°C in warming. This premise was assumed to show that, even using the global warming proponents data and argument, CO₂ is insignificant as a greenhouse gas. But, judging by the rising sea levels starting in the 19th century, before CO₂ was being produced in quantity by humans, and that this rise has been linear since then, in spite of all the CO₂ we have produced, it shows that even the increase of temperature by 0.8°C was probably not caused by CO₂ in the first place, so our rule of thumb in the last paragraph doesn't hold. Whatever has been causing the earth to warm for the past 2 centuries, it's not CO₂.

Raising the CO₂ level will do almost nothing to the greenhouse effect.

The above argument also starts with the premise that increases in the greenhouse effect and increases in CO₂ are linear, that is, equal amounts of raising CO₂ will cause equal amounts of warming. This is not the case at all, as figures 2c. and 2d. will show. We will see how almost all of the CO₂-mediated greenhouse effect was caused by the first very small amounts of CO₂, and that increases in CO₂ do almost nothing because the atmosphere is basically saturated (not an accurate term but often used) with CO₂ as it applies to the greenhouse effect. This is because the atmosphere is already almost opaque to IR at the CO₂ band, and you can't make anything more opaque than opaque.

Figure 2c. below, shows how most of the greenhouse effect that was caused by CO₂ was caused by the first 20 ppm. By the time we get up to 100 or 200 ppm., that accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect that is caused by CO₂, and the amount of CO₂ added by man so far, which brings it up to 400 ppm, has done very little, as you can clearly see from the graph. After 400 ppm., adding CO₂ to the air has almost no effect at all, because of saturation. Even if we double current 2014 levels to 800 ppm, which might take centuries to do, the earth gets warmer by less than 0.4 C. (Look at the difference between 20 and 40 ppm, one doubling, to see how much one doubling is). Most importantly, we can clearly see there is no "tipping point," because the more CO₂ we add, the less it does. The IPCC and other global warming activists say the rate is 3 degrees per doubling, but that's impossible as we will see.

From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

The numbers don't work if the climate sensitivity of CO₂ (the increase in temperature per doubling) is 3 degrees per doubling. If it were, when it doubled from 200 to 400 ppm we would have gotten 3 degrees, from 100 to 200, 3 more degrees, from 50 to 100, 3 more, from 25 to 50, 12 to 25, 6 to 12, and 3 to 6, that's 7 doublings that all happened when CO₂ was logarithmic, so from the past 7 doublings the earth would now be 21 C warmer thanks to CO₂. But let's do a reality check. How much of earth's greenhouse effect is really due to CO₂? The answer is 3 degrees, not 21. The total greenhouse effect is around 40° C and 90% of it is due to water vapor. Only 7% is due to CO₂. And 7% of 40 is around 3, not 21. So climate sensitivity is really 0.4° C per doubling to get 3 degrees out of 7 doublings. That's why this chart is accurate, and the IPCC charts are totally wrong. Look at the chart, and find the bar at 40 ppm. The bar is around 0.375 degrees of warming. That's the increase in temperature from one doubling, from 20 to 40 pp. You can see that all the other doublings add up to the same amount. The climate sensitivity has to be this low to account for past logarithmic doublings.

From the above chart, we see that increasing CO₂ to 800 ppm would only increase the temperature by .375 degrees. If we double it again to 1600 ppm, we increase it by another .375 degrees, but all that CO₂ in the upper atmosphere would have a large cooling effect, since the top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiates IR to space. Since there is almost no water vapor at the top of the atmosphere, the only major IR active species up there are CO₂ and ozone, so increasing CO₂ cools the earth much more than it warms it. That is why the whole theory of catastrophic global warming by increasing CO₂ is without merit. When we account for TOA cooling, increasing CO₂ to such high levels wont even warm the earth at all, but cool it.

Figure 2d. shows what is meant by saturation. It shows how adding CO₂ to the atmosphere decreases Earth's irradiance into space by blocking infrared. A decrease in irradiance at the top of Earth's atmosphere (the TOA), is evidence that the atmosphere is blocking those wavelengths from escaping into space, thereby heating Earth.

From Thermal Physics by Stephen and Katherine Blundell, 2010, Oxford University Press, p. 454

The TOA radiates mainly between 7 and 50 microns, which is the part of the spectrum associated with Earth's radiant temperature, but CO₂ only absorbs in a band around 15 microns (675 waves per cm.). Because the atmosphere is already almost opaque in that band, adding more CO₂ has little effect, and the figure shows exactly how much that effect is. In that 14-18 micron band, increasing CO₂ from 375 to 750 ppm. increases the opacity by the amount shown by dotted lines. The dip in the curve caused by the first 375 ppm. is the solid line. The dotted line, which corresponds with the second 375 ppm. is minuscule by comparison. The first 375 ppm. causes a dip the size of Grand Canyon, and the second 375 ppm. is like somebody chipping along the sides of the canyon with a small pick. Outside that band, adding CO₂ to the atmosphere does nothing at all. But it gets even worse...

One can see from the graph that at around 14 microns, and again at 16-18 microns, doubling of CO₂ increases the blocking of radiation very slightly, causing warming, but if you look at around 15 microns, radiation of heat into space increases, which causes cooling. So, as trivial as the increased blocking of radiation along the sides of the CO₂ band is by adding CO₂ to the atmosphere, it is offset by a slight increase in radiation in the central part of that band. The temperature associated with 15 microns is much colder than the surface anywhere on Earth, so it corresponds with the TOA temperatures, which means this radiation is going into space. Any of this radiation aimed downward would be blocked by CO₂ high up, and never reach the ground. In summary, some of the effect of doubling CO₂ causes warming, and some causes cooling, but in either case the amount is trivial because the atmosphere is already almost opaque to infrared at the CO₂ band.

This represents the increase in greenhouse effect if we raised the level to 750 ppm, which would take centuries to do and would only result if we burned every trace of fossil fuel reserves on the planet. So, as trivial as this increase in the greenhouse effect would be by raising CO₂ to 750 ppm., it will probably never even happen.

According to climate physicist Murray L. Salby, in his "Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate," p. 248-9, the greenhouse effect over the past 2 centuries has been increased by 1.5 Wm^-2 due to anthropogenic CO₂. He continues that this "is about 0.5% of the 327 Wm^-2 of overall downwelling LW radiation that warms the Earth's surface. The vast majority of that warming is contributed by water vapor. Together with cloud, it accounts for 98% of the greenhouse effect."

Figures 2e. and 2f. make the argument more clear. MODTRAN data (from the US air force) is plotted. You can see the effect of CO2 becomes negligible after 200 ppm. We are now around 400 ppm.

But it gets much worse. Figure 2g. below shows what happens when we calculate the water vapor and CO₂ together. It turns out that CO₂ becomes negligible when water vapor goes above an extremely low amount. Let's take a look:

Fig. 2g.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/ed-caryl-modtran-shows-co2-doubling-will-have-almost-no-effect-on-temperature/comment-page-1/. Chart by Ed Caryl

The chart shows downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere at CO₂ levels of zero to 1000 ppm, and humidity levels from 0% to 90%, at the standard temperature of 0° C. We can see that CO₂ has an appreciable greenhouse effect so long as the humidity is 0%, but even then, it diminishes logarithmically and increases become minor after a CO₂ level of less than 100 ppm. But if the humidity jumps to 1% (at 0° C this is extremely dry air), the greenhouse effect is already dominated by water vapor. If you increase the humidity to 5%, still an extremely low amount, the greenhouse effect due to additional CO₂ becomes totally negligible. At water vapor levels of 10% and above, CO₂ does absolutely nothing. But 10% humidity at 0° C is still lower than almost anywhere on earth, even the driest desert during the worst drought is not this low...the only place on earth where the humidity is this low is the poles, which is why scientists always say that global warming should start at the poles. But the South Pole, which has the driest air on the planet, has not warmed at all in 100 years, in spite of all the increase in CO₂.

The arguments presented in this chapter make it clear that the greenhouse effect on earth is mediated almost entirely by water vapor. The arguments make it clear that the contribution of CO₂ to the greenhouse effect is mainly due to pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm CO₂, and that if the CO₂ is increased by man to 400 ppm or any higher amount, the argument that such greenhouse effect will be increased by more than a negligible amount, is without merit.

Chapter 3. Global warming

Figure 3.

The above temperature charts were produced by NASA's GISS division, headed by Jim Hansen for many years, and now by Gavin Schmidt, both of whom have altered the data so often it's hard to discern what the true pattern is, but the gist of it is, between 1880 and 1942, global temperatures went up sharply and substantially, from 1942 to 1978 global temperatures decreased and rebounded, back where they were in 1942, they rose again sharply during the period 1978 to 2000 or so, and since 2000 they have leveled off.

The rise from 1880 to 1942 could not have been caused by man, because CO₂ levels were still mostly unchanged from pre-industrial levels.

The animated gif was produced by Tony Heller, a computer system architect who did contract work for the National Climate Data Center. We see the results of ongoing repeated data tampering by GISS, who on numerous occasions have adjusted the historical data downward for years before 1963, and upward for years after. They did this deliberately, to exaggerate the warming trend, and to hide the cooling trend between 1942 and 1978, obviously for political purposes. It's one of the most glaring examples of government-mandated science fraud since Nazi Germany.

The Poles

What about the melting poles? They always show us pictures of polar bears and melting sea ice at the north pole. It turns out, the Arctic was warming for a while but has rebounded to earlier levels, and Antarctic sea ice is increasing. The following graph shows total global sea ice since 1979.

Figure 3a. Global sea ice has not changed in 26 years. Look at the red trend line at the bottom.

   Courtesy University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, see web address in screen grab.

There was a decrease in global sea ice from around 2004 to 2012, but it has now recovered to 1980 values. Every year the amount of sea ice reaches a maximum in December when the Antarctic sea ice melt exceeds Arctic freezing, and a minimum in February when the Antarctic sea ice is almost all melted and the Arctic is still freezing.

Figure 3b shows us another of the deceptions of the propagandists. When they want to convince us that Arctic ice is vanishing, they usually show the years from 1980 to now, and cut out the equally warm 1930's, but this chart shows Arctic temperatures since 1900. A cherry picker may say "The rate of warming in the last 20 years is 8-times greater than the rate of warming over the past 100 years." (Note the green and red lines in the above graph). One look at the graph, though, shows that this statement is misleading, since the last 20 years is merely a return to 1938 levels.

Above graph from: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php

The AGW theory requires that global warming starts at the poles, because the poles are the only places in the troposphere where water vapor content is low enough that CO₂ becomes a relevant greenhouse gas, and since the poles are not warming, if both poles are taken together, that means the theory is a null hypothesis. But that won't stop alarmists from showing starving polar bears, instead of fat penguins. By the way, the polar bears are also fat.

Modern Warming

What about the hockey stick, the recent rise in global temperatures? Well yes, the earth's temperature is rising, but it started around 1780. Let's look at some data derived from ice cores taken in central Greenland, on the summit of an ice sheet 2 miles high (because the ice is 2 miles thick), in the study done by NOAA called GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project #2).

Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and we can measure the H and O isotopes in the ice at varying depths to tell us what the temperatures were in the past. The data are used as a "proxy," which means an event which can be used in place of thermometers. Many things are used as proxies, such as tree rings, pollen, dust, and sediment cores, but polar ice cores are the best because they are taken in places where there is very little weather, (no tornados, typhoons, floods), and very little other changes, (no biological influence, no changes from geology because it's 2 miles above solid ground), and it's far away from any human influence. Oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in the ice are analyzed to determine hemispheric temperatures because heavy water (water with deuterium instead of ¹H), as well as heavy oxygen water, (water with ¹⁸O instead of ¹⁶O), have higher boiling points than regular water, and more heavy water gets into the atmosphere when global temperatures are high. The warmer the earth, the more heavy isotopes wind up in the ice. This has nothing to do with the temperature of the ice, it has to do with the temperatures at the evaporation sites.

Some argue that the Greenland proxy is local, and that the snow that freezes in Greenland arose in the Arctic, and so all the ice cores show us is polar temperatures, and some argue that the stratification of the isotopes in the ice cores results from fractioning during precipitation, so all they show us is the temperatures on Greenland Summit itself, but both of these points are wrong. Werner et. al., 2001 found that only 15% of Greenland Summit moisture comes from the Arctic Ocean. The rest comes from the following: 28% from the northern Atlantic, 15% from North America, 14% from the tropical Atlantic, 10% from the tropical Indopacific, 8% from the northern Pacific, 6% from Eurasia, and because this only adds up to 96%, the remaining 4% must come from the southern hemisphere, although it doesn't state that in the paper. But the Arctic Ocean doesn't count here, because it is full of ice and is therefore always the same temperature (in the same way that ice water in your glass is always 32 °F) and therefore, water vapor that arises from the Arctic Ocean would not be differentially fractioned in terms of isotopes and would have nothing to do with the isotope stratification in the ice core. The reason the stratification is due to differential evaporation at the source, not fractioning during precipitation, is found in Werner et. al., in the same paper, which states that a polar ice core "seems to be a surface temperature proxy" which means the surface temperature at the evaporative source, because "The strength of the deuterium excess signal is in general related to kinetic fractionation effects during evaporation, and can therefore be used as an indicator of changes in temperature and/or humidity at the evaporation site (Vimeux et. al. 1999, Johnson et. al., 1989)." Another reason the Greenland proxy is not local is, Antarctic proxies show similar results when there is no south polar ocean at all. A third reason is, during an ice age the Arctic Ocean is completely frozen over and covered with a mile of snow, yet ice core results from 30,000 years ago, during the depth of an ice age, show similar isotope stratification as during the Holocene when the Arctic Ocean has liquid surface water. Polar ice core proxies are, therefore, hemispheric. The Greenland ice core data, which is a proxy for the northern hemisphere, instead of Antarctic which is a proxy for southern, will be used for this analysis because most humans live up here. High resolution Antarctic ice core results showing Holocene temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are seen in figure 3k.

The Greenland ice core data are from NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

Looking at the data, it starts thousands of years ago and ends at a point that is .095 thousand years BP (95 years before present). This means 95 years before the geological "present" (by definition, geological present is January 1, 1950). This means 1855.

The horizontal axis on the charts below is the year, the vertical axis shows the proxy temperatures in central Greenland, in Celsius, as determined by the isotope signatures found in the cores. The temperature at the summit of Greenland is used on the chart because it is a known value that can be measured with a thermometer and calibrated in the lab to line up with isotope levels in precipitation measured there in modern times. Water vapor from the tropics moves to the poles through the stratosphere and upper troposphere, so local surface weather is not relevant, only hemispheric temperatures.

As we can see, the hockey stick starts around 1780, long before we started increasing the atmosphere's carbon dioxide levels. The data stops in 1855 because the snow above that level is too recent and not solidified, and is not usable in ice cores, but we know from figure 3 that the hockey stick goes through the 20th century as well.

Figure 3b. The red arrows points to the hockey stick from 1780 to 1855.

.

Figure 3c. goes back to 800 AD. We see the warm period around 1000 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). This is when Greenland was settled by the Danes and Norwegians. They had to leave around 1400 and you can see why. They settled Iceland around 880 A.D. when it was becoming warm there. It looks like 1855 was much cooler than the MWP as well, but don't forget to add the modern century and a half, which is warmer. How much warmer? See below at figure 3i. and 3j.

Figure 3d. goes back even further, to around 2,700 BC. Around 1,400 BC it was much warmer than even the MWP, or the modern hockey stick. Our modern temperatures, even with global warming, are colder than some of these peaks, which happened when the CO₂ level was very low and nobody was burning anything but sticks.

.

Figure 3f. goes back to 11,000 BC and and includes the entire Holocene. Look at some of the giant hockey sticks here, many of which are much bigger AND steeper than the global warming of today. All of this happened, however, when the CO₂ level was much lower than today. We are getting into the last ice age. Look how cold it got back then, around 10,000 BC, and look how insignificant our little hockey stick is. It looks like the hockey stick, if it went a little higher, would bring us up to normal interglacial average Holocene temperatures. None of this has anything to do with man-made CO₂.

Figure 3g. This is when it starts to get scary. Remember how cold it got at 10,000 BC? It was like that for thousands of years before then. Canada and the northern US and Europe were buried under a mile of ice. Look how lucky we are today and how nice that hockey stick looks, warming us up a little. Feels nice, doesn't it?

Figure 3h. is when is gets really scary. These data are from Vostok, Antarctica because Greenland ice doesn't go back this far in time. It shows the past several ice ages. It was warm 120,000 years ago, 230,000 years ago, 330,000 years ago, and 420,000 years ago. All the rest of the time it was ice ages. You can't see the hockey stick anymore but it's in the warm part on the right. The warm parts usually last only a few thousand years, and we are past the end of ours and living on borrowed time. Long live the hockey stick!

What about the years between 1855 and now? What was the temperature after 1855? Nobody was taking temperatures at the GISP2 site all this time. Luckily, there is a weather station only a few miles from there called the GRIP site, where people have been taking temperatures since 1840! The GRIP site is not as cold as the GISP2 site, so we can't just insert the data onto the chart. But we can simply find the difference between the 1855 GISP2 temperature of -31.6 and the decadal average for the 1850's at the GRIP site, which was -28.4, for a difference of 3.2 degrees. Now, we can add that number and plot the GRIP data right onto the GISP2 chart to get a modern hockey stick.

Figure 3i.

Figure 3j., shows what we did. We spliced the GRIP data (red) onto the GISP2 data (blue) to bring us to the modern temp of -30.2 at the GISP2 site in Greenland and -27.0 at the GRIP site. You can see that this hockey stick is nothing out of the ordinary. The same amount and speed of increase in temperatures happened many times during the past 10,000 years. Actually, every time before. This modern hockey stick looks like it belongs here, and is perfectly normal. What is certain is that it's not catastrophic in any way.

Figure 3k. Ice core results from the Southern Hemisphere proxy at Vostok, Antarctica, showing only the past 12,000 years. Compare to figure 3f., which shows the same time period using the Northern Hemisphere proxy at Greenland Summit. Note that there is very little correlation between the two hemispheres, showing that they operate somewhat independently. The only clear correlation is that the Holocene started around 12,000 years ago in both hemispheres.What is very clear from both hemispheres is that many times during the past 12,000 years, it has been warmer than our current temperatures, without any help from fossil fuel combustion.


From "Global Warming, Alarmists, Skeptics, and Deniers" by Robinson and Robinson, 2012, Moonshine Cove Publishing, Abbeville, SC.

The ice cores only go back so far, down to the bottom of the ice shields. Is there a way to find global temperatures before then? Yes, and it's similar to the method used by the ice cores in that it takes advantage of oxygen isotopes, only backwards. When global temperatures are high, more water with the ¹⁸O isotope evaporates and forms our ice caps, fills our lakes, and soaks in as ground water, which means less of it remains in the oceans. During these times, the sediment that falls to the bottom of the ocean has less ¹⁸O in it. So, ice cores have more ¹⁸O in them when it's warm, and benthic sediment cores have less of it. Geologists have studied sediment cores for many years, and have given us graphs showing global temperatures going back millions of years.

Figures 3l. and 3m. show global temperatures for the past 3 million and 65 million years, respectively. They show us that, since the days of dinosaurs, global temperatures have always been warmer than they are now, except during ice ages.

Below is a photo of Vice President Gore disproving anthropogenic global warming, but he is too stupid to know it.

He is showing how CO₂ correlates with temperature over the past several ice ages. The red line is CO₂ and the blue is temperature, for the past 650,000 years. Al Gore is trying to show that CO₂ causes warming. We already know, however, that the changes in blue precede the red. In other words, the changes in temperature cause CO₂ to rise. (Warming of the earth causes CO₂ to come out of the oceans.) VP Gore's antics of raising himself on a 20 foot high lift to show astronomically high CO₂ levels, without a concomitant rise in temperature, only proves that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Let's get a better look at the chart he used, and see how CO₂ lags behind warming.

CHAPTER 4. THE SUN

Let me just show you some pretty pictures. First, from "The Neglected Sun" by F. Vahrenholt and S. Lüning:

The next one shows increase and decrease of solar activity, from carbon 14 evidence. From Wikipedia. See there, or google it.

The next one shows solar irradiance since 1611. On the chart, the zig-zags are the 11-year solar cycles, but the long-term pattern shows that the sun's irradiance has increased by 3.3 W/m² in the past 400 years, which is more than twice as much as the forcing due to anthropogenic CO₂ as calculated by Salby above. 
From "Global Warming, Alarmists, Skeptics, and Deniers" by Robinson and Robinson, 2012, Moonshine Cove Publishing, Abbeville, SC.

And here is an updated version of the same thing, showing the years after 2001, and the reason for "the pause":

One of the most common claims made by the global warming activists is that the warming from 1908 to 1942 was caused by the sun, but that the warming from 1978 to 2000 was caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide, but one look at the above graph shows that their claim is without merit. The solar constant is 3.5 W/m2 higher than it was in the Little Ice Age, so the sun is obviously the cause of all warming for the past 300 years.

A new finding is that solar cycles have a greater variability than previously thought, especially their effect on UV production, and there are centuries long cycles in UV production as well. One such study is http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/pdf/1748-9326_5_3_034008.pdf. Since UV contains more energy than visible light, and longer wavelengths of UV are not absorbed by ozone but do reach the ground, it stands to reason that UV cycles have more to do with warming than previously thought.

 I think the story is told right here, so it's time to end this paper. Turns out, it's the sun, stupid.
 

SUMMARY

In chapter 1, we found out how they lied to us about sea levels. In chapter 2, we learned how they lied to us about CO₂. In chapter 3, we discovered that global warming is happening, but what they tell us about it is all lies. In chapter 4, we learned about the sun.

It's clear that AGW was just a fad, like Disco. This fad lasted from the early 1980's until around 2009, when the fraud was fully exposed, and more fraud is being exposed daily. Global warming is dead. Only the most hard-core alarmists, with the most invested, are still holding onto the hoax.

WHY ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW) IS WRONG - A concise list of reasons

We cannot disprove AGW by making fun of Al Gore, proving fraud in Mann or Jones, questioning the motives of political activists, or disputing the computer models. It's possible for these to be wrong and AGW to still be true. We must give actual reasons which prove it to be wrong. Click the list of reasons.

  Atmospheric radiative response time is about one month. Atmospheric Radiation, James Coakley and Ping Yang. c. Wiley, page 2.