I came across this article: “What would it take to prove global warming” which as the evidence shows the climate researchers don’t even vaguely understanding climate, was setting the bar too high with: “A full understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms.” Climate academics are centuries away from even starting to understand why global temperature changes. So, I wanted to suggest a more pragmatic series of tests (not based on understanding, but on measurable criteria)
A significant difference in temperature.
But during the period of CO2 increase there has been no change significantly different from normal variations
I struggle to understand why anyone has any problems understanding that climate changes and that if e.g. we look at the longest proxy for global temperature (the Central England temperature). There is nothing at all unusual about the present period. Indeed, there was much more warming from 1690 to 1730, and there are several other periods where similar warming occurred (1890-1940, ~1815-1840). I’ve done the analysis and there is nothing abnormal with current temperatures.
Significant indications of trends in multiple proxies such as severe weather, droughts, floods, etc.
But there are no such trends
In contrast, there is no adverse trends in severe weather, droughts etc. The only significant trends are a REDUCTION in hurricane activity and a very odd “increase in the most intense bits of rain” (which is almost certainly because modern equipment can measure these short duration bursts – whereas older equipment did not).
Global Ice would need to be reducing – particularly surface ice which would respond most if there was current warming.
But surface ice is growing both on sea and land
Because glaciers take time to respond – they build up in cooler period like the little ice-age and by my calculations on the time it takes for heat to get into the ground, take around a century to melt, they are not good indicators of current warming. Instead, the key metric is not ice locked up in a glacier slowly responding over centuries, but surface ice responding to the temperature now.
And much to the howls of indignation of alarmists, none of the ice metric for current temperatures show current warming. Antarctic ice is increasing. Global sea ice is normal, Greenland surface ice has increased since 1990.
Moreover, having looked at the correlation between Milankovitch cycles and ice-core metrics, there are clearly “discontinuities” showing periods when Antarctic ice has melted removing (as I recall) around 16,000 years of ice. As we known, the world did not end in a firey ball as a result of that melting. So we are a long way away from such “doomsday” as rather than thawing, ice is melting and accumulating.
Convincing proof that the models work
In contrast, not one predicted the pause
To put it simply: all that the climate researchers know about the world’s climate is encapsulated in their models. Thus we can very easily test whether they understand the climate at all by the skill with which they predict the climate. Not one predicted the pause, thus we can conclude that “all they know” is not much at all.
An end to the culture of lying and deceit in Climate
Even with the best will, people tend to push their own views of what the data means, so any good analyst will take this into account and try to determine if their is bias and take account of it. But in climate, bias is so endemic it is almost impossible to guess how much the data has to be “recalibrated” to remove bias. That doesn’t disprove warming – but it does mean that anything & any data coming from anyone pushing warming has to be treated with the most utmost extreme caution. Indeed, the tendency is often to say “it must be partly right” – but when such extreme bias is present, it usually indicates that the opposite of what is being said is true (see graph).
There is now no doubt that temperature measures are being dishonestly altered, that data is being adjusted and that there has been a wholesale campaign to promote a blatantly political view under the guise of “science”. Like an ice-berg, it is certain, that for each instance of data manipulation and falsification that we get to know about, there are many many more. Worse – not once have colleagues of those concerned “blown the whistle” on the clear fraudulent behaviour that have taken place. So, not only is data being manipulated, but there is no one willing to blow the lid off the scam. That means there is a lot more fraud to be uncovered!
And what does happen when someone independently checks the “global warming” data – they find “cooling” (so much for the sceptics – like me- saying “we think it must be partly true!”)
When the adjustments are removed from the NASA temperatures, we find all the warming has been man-made, not in the climate, but in NASA.
Note, this one study doesn’t “prove” cooling – instead it proves NASA cannot be trusted (and that cooling may be present). And because there is pretty much the same “Climategate” culture of “hiding the decline” that affects all surface measurements, we only have satellite data – and even then – because the culture of deceit is so endemic, we cannot blindly believe the satellite data. (Note one group producing satellite data are sceptics)
And “blind” is the operative word, because as a result of this infestation of liars and cheats – and because nothing ever said about climate has ever withstood the test of real data – the world really has no temperature & no climate data that can be trusted.
So, to be blunt, I would personally sack every single person currently involved in compiling climate data. NASA, NOAA, the Met Office. I would stop any involvement of any academics. And then I would set up an entirely new organisation – ideally in a country that hasn’t been party to the scam – where sceptics have not been attacked and repressed – and where high level of integrity are still maintained. (And certainly not under the EU or UN which are about as corrupt as one can get on this subject)