A Quarrel with the Concept of Man-Induced Climate Change

Popular science and the popular media has for some time now accepted "global warming," aka "climate change" caused by man's activities as a fait accompli. Unlike standard scientific information, this body of work is not open to typical scientific scrutiny (try to find formally published rebuttal).  Indeed any critics of this body of work are generally denigrated and impugned by so-called "climate scientists."  

The purpose of this information presented for discussion is to explore the facts and basic data relevant to climate change and its study and to quarrel with this intransigent theory-made-fact-by-popular-voice.  Those with the popular voice would call me a climate skeptic; I call myself a climate realist.  For me, man-induced climate change is a catastrophically failed hypothesis.

The basic over-arching reference for the summary of the relevant scientific literature has been the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC Reports by a body governed by the United Nations.  Just how that international political body became the the governing body for this particular realm of unquestionable science remains shrouded in historical huggermuggery.  IPCC REPORTS STARTED TO BE ANNUAL issuances on a variety of topics surrounding atmospheric science IN 1990. This link embeded in this sentence Provides access to all IPCC reports.  

Seductively large amounts of money have come to support this work such that it became very sought-after support for research.  With each passing year, in particular in the 2000s, the complexity and volume (but not the veracity) of research feeding to these IPCC reports has greatly expanded. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC appears to have stopped naming reports by year, adding to the confusion of these results. The most recent information appears to be here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/. These efforts have indeed become ponderous and difficult to decipher at their core.

The technical bases of the IPCC Report are a bit more difficult to find, as they are tucked into a stack of three pieces of the report. This discussion deals primarily with the information presented by Working Group I:

• Working Group I – The Physical Science Basis
• Working Group II– Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
• Working Group III– Mitigation of Climate Change

The US has developed their own compendium of information, the US National Climate Assessment. You will notice the home page of this organization has a a primary missive "the effects or 'climate change.'" rather than any underlying science. 

I leave research into the details of those bodies of work to the reader.  The basic conclusions are well known and widely publicized: 

• Global temperatures have been profoundly affected by increases of atmospheric CO2
• Atmospheric warming resulted, as shown by results of atmospheric and oceanic temperature measurements and results of atmospheric modeling
• Sea level rise, to the detriment of coastal land areas, has and will suffer due to oceanic inundation and flooding

Here are the salient "social and environmental" conclusions of the 2019 Report, citing implications of adoption of the report suggestions:

• 10 million fewer people could be at risk from sea level rise
• Several hundred million people may avoid poverty susceptibility by mid-century
• World population exposed to water stress may be reduced by 50%
•  Loss of 1.5 million tonnes of global annual catch for marine fisheries could be avoided
• 10-30% of coral reefs could be saved
• Permafrost area three times the size of Texas may be prevented from thawing
• The number of plant and animal species losing over half their habitat could be cut in half

I welcome input here to any other sourced of published technical information on climate change.  The major flaw I see in these studies are enumerated below. The major issue revolves around the use of models to evaluate pending conditions, ignoring historical data.  There have also been proven cases of fraud related to what use of historical data has been referenced (Climategate, so-called, discussed below).

I found four major lines of reasoning that prompted me to question such duplicitous findings: 

A. The strict linear trend of sea level over the past 200+ years remains unchanged despite a parabolic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration,

B. The heavy dependence of climate temperature models on CO2, a trace gas with only a minute concentration in our atmosphere (about 0.04%),

C. The trend of climate over the most recent 800,000 years relative to current conditions shows huge swings from warm to cold, about 799,800 of those years without and influence possible from man,

D. Temperature records: recent warming trends have "paused." The pause is an unexplained condition within the current thesis of climate change

A. Sea Level Trend

The underlying assumption for this discussion topic is that climate change will raise earth temperature such that ice caps will melt and raise sea level.

I was first introduced to the topic of climate change on a professional level when faced with the task of evaluating flooding potential for coastal US nuclear power plants. A full re-evaluation of plant flood designs and flood prevention features was ordered by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) after the 2011 flood prevention design failures due to the earthquake and tsunami that affected the nuclear plant at Fukashima Japan.

When we asked the NRC for a standard to apply to sea level rise through time (most n-plants are licensed for 40 years, so environmental hazards need to be assessed for that sort of future time period) the reference provided was NOAA sea level measurements compiled for the many gauging stations throughout our many US coastal areas. Here is the specific reference data provided to us by the NRC for the New York City area: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750.  We were told to simply extrapolate the historic data on the chart into the future to make sure that flood protection features at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, about 36 miles up the Hudson River from New York City. Here are the data:

Figure 1. Historic NOAA sea level data from NY City, Battery Park at the tip of Manhattan

Numerous similar data sets showing the same trend can be accessed at this NOAA site, although this is one of the longest records.

Pushing out to see an even wider historic window for sea level, which I will explain here later, are these relevant data:

Figure 2. A compendium of sea level data to represent ocean level rise since the peak of the last (Wisconsin) glacial period.

It was the absolute linear trend of the concise-and-clearly-indicative US NOAA sea-level-trend data that first grabbed my attention on this topic.  

Notice the vastly different x-axis time scales for Figures 1 and 2.  Glacial melting released torrents of water back into the oceans, raising sea level as much as 360 feet. Of course at the same time, land levels, which had been depressed under the weight of glacial ice, measuring as much as 30.000 tons per square foot, were rebounding.  In many places the rebound continues to a lesser extent today.

Temperature and CO2

Deeply embedded in my mind was also the historic geological information on climate history over the last several million years, a history of repeated continental-scaled glaciations. Here are those data from NOAA, representing the last 800,000 years, derived from ice cores with CO2 data included:

Figure 3. Earth temperature and atmospheric CO2 estimates based on nuclear isotope data from ice cores for the past 800,000 years

It could not be more clear from these indisputable data that natural climate fluctuations have occurred many times in the last million of years and appear to be continuing to occur, all with absolutely no influence from man, whose significant presence on earth is very limited.

You should also note that the CO2 data on Figure 3 appears to follow temperature very closely. Unfortunately for "climate scientists" on more detailed graphs there is a time lag for CO2 compared to temperature.  Temperature flux caused CO2 to vary, not the other way around.  More on that later.

B. Atmospheric CO2 as a driver of climate temperature for a planet

The underlying assumptions for this discussion are that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" which can cause heat to be trapped within our atmosphere such that there is a corresponding significant rise in the temperature of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and by association, the earth itself. Unfortunately for our "climate scientists" the atmosphere itself cannot supply the barrier (the glass of the greenhouse) needed for such a condition to be significant.

The most compelling and the most important information to ascertain from the data in Figures 1 to 4, relative to any study of climate change, is the absolute linear and unchanging trend of sea level rise over the past 200+ years. Since the major arguments for man inducing climate change is the undeniable increase in atmospheric concentration of atmospheric CO2, the strict linearity of that sea level trend flies in the face of any interpretation of CO2 as a driver for climate. 

Figure 4. Natural sea level trend and man-caused increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1900.

Further, CO2 represents only 0.04% of the atmosphere, hardly a concentration which should be expected to be a driver for a planetary climate, but more on that later. 

C. The Natural Trends of Climate 

Historically (within the period of what we will call modern man) CO2 has increased in concentration in the atmosphere dramatically due to burning of fossil fuels, particularly recently.  Of this there is no doubt. Here is a typical data representation:

Figure 5. Atmospheric CO2 concentration through time. 

Notice in particular the recent dramatic spike in CO2. 

So, what are the implications here? It depends on who you ask. Remember first that the atmosphere has gone from unnder 200 or so to 400 or so Parts per Million since . That is a minuscule concentration.  Furthermore, CO2 would need some magical properties to be driving climate for a planet with trace gas amounts.  While there are thermal retention properties attributed to CO2 that can cause it to behave as a "greenhouse gas," the relationship appears to me to be a very weak one. And compared to the greenhouse effect of atmospheric water vapor, CO2 is simply a non-factor.

Here is a little more historical perspective on current earth temperatures:

Figure 6. Earth Temperature Estimates for the past 17,000 years

Notice the major fluctuations at the 8200 year mark and "Medieval Warming" and "Little Ice Age" nodes. Current climate models make no accommodations for such obviously natural fluctuation, where man could obviously has no influence. And notice too the minuscule affect for the current condition, a mere insignificant variance amid the major and obviously natural variabilities of the past. Alarmism about current conditions appears to be totally unwarranted based simply on the historic record. 

Further, CO2 is, as we all know so very well, the key element in plant growth.  And, predictably, crop yields have been going up dramatically as atmospheric CO2 has risen (the trend remains in place in 2020 and note well, land use area has really not increased!  The increase in atmospheric CO2 is a tremendous benefit to the living standards of everyone alive. 

Figure 7. Atmospheric CO2 increase leads to better plant growth and food production for the entire planet

In the face of this, "climate scientists" try to argue away the obvious by complicating the issue.  Once again, they ignore the real data from the "ground."  There is really no arguing with the sort of data on the above chart. And it is the same for all crops.

At the outset of attempts to measure a number that is a single temperature for the entire earth (no mean task with any tool set), historic terrestrial thermometer data was compiled and used.  Since many stations with long histories were in urban settings and those settings tended to be ones where urban conditions expanded over the years of those records, the well known heat-island effect that influences cities caused what I will call an independent temperature increase for those historical records at those locations.  Those erroneous data were used as evidence of what was initially called "global warming."  Until, of course some reasonably astute reviews of the database revealed that obvious condition. When satellite temperature data began to be used for this purpose, the issue became abundantly clear.

Global mean surface air temperature (SAT, perhaps the most unreliable source for estimating, ignoring the bulk of the atmosphere, has remained relative stagnant since the late 1990s, a phenomenon known as global warming hiatus or "the pause" (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12583-019-1239-4). The "climate change" club has made a huge list of excuses for this pause, telling you that it is very real (https://wattsupwiththat.com/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming), when nothing could be further from the truth.

A massive scandal, denigrated and ignored to the extent possible by the media and many so-called climate scientists themselves, Climategate, was uncovered in 2010-11. 1079 emails and 72 documents were cited as evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent climate scientists pushing the man-made warming theory, although they call it fact, not theory. I see this in its larger context as a bigger scientific hoax than Piltdown Man.

Even since that discovery, temperature data seems to show evidence of tampering and deformation and it has been recognized in prior publications as well.  Here is a comparison of data from the "respected" IPCC reports with references:

Figure 7. Conflicting earth temperature data from IPCC reports; the 2001 "hockey stick" model has been completely discredited

Climate Change: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Scientific Assessment, United Nations Environment Programme, 1991, page 202, https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policy Makers, page 3, https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf

The second graph there, prescriptively X'ed out, is the infamous "hockey stick" data of Michael Mann. It was a bald faced data falsification; you will find attempts at rebuttal in the information at that link.

Levels of sea ice have also been at issue relative to this temperature issue. Yet, the slow expansion of sea ice in Antarctica for the past 35 years is "unexpected", because it cannot be explained by climate models, which some scientists mistakenly trust more than real data.  The question should be: Why do models fail to reproduce Antarctic sea ice growth? Here are the data for sea ice anomalies:

Figure 8. Ice cap extent for the South Pole region

See the dramatic effect of warming?  Me neither.  In fact the regression line slopes UP,  the wrong way!  The question should be: Why do "climate change" models fail to reproduce Antarctic sea ice growth?

A corollary to temperature alarmism is the attempt at pinning extreme weather events to "climate change." That mulish and foolish attempt at pinning together two separate issues to further complicate a problem is nothing less than perverse. 

As part of this attempt to make people believe that climate change is real, the "climate change" club would have us believe that storms of all sorts have become more severe and frequent.  Nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Ryan Maue, NOAA Chief Scientist, used satellite data to reconstruct global tropical storm, hurricane, and major hurricane frequency.  We now have close to 50-years worth of data. No significant trends. They're not getting more powerful either as there has been no significant trends in global accumulated cyclone energy (ACE).  Here are his relevant charts:

Figure 8. Tropical Storm and Hurricane Occurrence over the past 40 to 50 years showing no trend relative to atmospheric CO2 increase

Tornadoes and forest fires, claimed to be worse as a result of "climate change" is similarly bad information. 

Another line of argument has been sea ice diminishing extent.  If you can see it on a long term basis here, you have different eyes than mine!

Figure 9. Sea ice extent from Japanese studies

Summaries and Conclusions

An overview of this general thesis in an oral presentation, excellent but over 2 years old now, is here:

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/06/24/watch-climatologist-epa-board-scientist-dr-john-christy-exposes-the-climate-scare/

In this presentation Dr. John Christy, an EPA board scientist, and professor who has been critiquing so-called climate science for decades now, with a grossly under-reported point of view.

And here is another compendium of thoughts based in real data to hold up against current mainstream views:

https://realclimatescience.com/2020/10/war-on-science/

Your opinions are welcome.  In order to provide structure to our discussion, please categorize your thoughts under the headings above, A, B, C, and D.