The Fundamental Fraud Behind Climate Science

Comparing Arctic sea ice volume to atmospheric CO2, it is clear that peaks in CO2 correspond with peaks in Arctic sea ice – and vice-versa.

 

What this shows us is that temperature drives CO2.  Most of the world’s oceans are in the southern hemisphere.  During the southern hemisphere summer, the oceans warm up and outgas CO2.  During southern hemisphere winters, the oceans cool and absorb CO2.

The graph of Antarctic ice core data below is on display at the NCAR museum.  It shows how CO2 and temperature correlate, for the reasons I just explained. It also shows that the recent spike in CO2 has had no corresponding increase in temperature.

Climate science is based on putting the cart before the horse.  Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. In fact, Antarctica has cooled as CO2 has increased.

Pubs.GISS: Abstract of Shindell and Schmidt 2004

Climate alarmism depends on putting the cart before the horse and misleading the public about this topic. This deception is essential for maintaining the climate scam, and was so important that Al Gore and Laurie David actually reversed the scale of the X-Axis in order to defraud children in her school textbook.

Her fraudulent graph made CO2 change before temperature, instead of the actual relationship – which is the exact opposite.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The Fundamental Fraud Behind Climate Science

  1. Griff says:

    Look, I can’t be polite about this – this is batshit nonsense of the highest order.

    there is of course an annual CO2 cycle… the point is though that human CO2 adds an excess and thus the amount of it remaining in the atmosphere increases, year on year. Which drives a temperature rise.

    • tonyheller says:

      As is often the case, the point of the post completely went over your head.

    • RAH says:

      Griff

      The point is that rises in atmospheric CO2 have, as best we can determine, followed rising temperatures by several decades and not coincided or proceeded them.
      Which fizzes most? An “ice cold” Coca-Cola or a hot one?

    • Johansen says:

      How does atmospheric CO2, at 1 particle per 2,500, “drive” anything? The “causation” component here seems pretty dubious… especially since other things can explain temperature better, like the fact that we’re 8 minutes from a fluctuating 6,000 degree furnace. Everything I’m reading points away from CO2…

    • Gator says:

      Ms Griff, the oceans outgas CO2 as they warm, ergo during an interglacial we see rising CO2 levels.

      “We now think the delay is more like 200 years, possibly even less,” says Tas van Ommen from the Australian Antarctic Division, in Hobart, who led the study.
      The new results come from Siple and Byrd ice cores in western Antarctica. Van Ommen and colleagues dated CO2 bubbles trapped in the ice, and then compared their measurements with records of atmospheric temperatures from the same time period.
      As expected, when temperature increased, carbon dioxide followed, but at both Siple and Byrd the time lag was around 200 years – much shorter than previous studies found.

      What started happening 200 years ago MS Griff?

      • RAH says:

        According to Michael Mann’s Hockey stick? Nothing much. According to just about everyone else on the planet and the history of the times, the LIA ended around 1850 and a general warming pattern began. So 200 years ago the LIA was winding down though it’s demise may have been delayed by a series of powerful volcanic eruptions near the equator starting near the turn of the century that are believed to have caused “the summer that never was” during 1816 in the US.

    • Snowleopard says:

      @Griff Human produced CO2 has in recent years increased exponentially, while the global CO2 increase maintains a almost steady arithmetical increase. So it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for the human CO2 increase to be a major component of the global CO2 increase; more likely. it is lost in the rounding errors.

    • Spiritus Mundi says:

      If that were true Griff, how do you explain the NCAR data?

    • spike55 says:

      Two questions for you griff..

      try not to RUN AWAY

      Q1.. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

      Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

      PUT UP or STFU !!

  2. I don’t think outgassing of oceans in the southern hemisphere drives north hemisphere CO2 levels. That Mauna Loa curve is more a reflection of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, more sun in the summer means more photosynthesis in the summer, in the ocean and on land, and corresponding decrease in CO2. In winter the CO2 goes up as plants decompose.

    It takes months for regional CO2 levels to mix globally, I’m sure a CO2 analysis in the southern hemisphere would show less CO2 in the southern summer.

  3. Stewart Pid says:

    Griff, the poster boy for “batshit nonsense of the highest order” once again proves that he isn’t the brightest crayon in the box.
    Seriously Griff reread Tony’s post and think about the actual point he is making.

  4. Spiritus Mundi says:

    “During the southern hemisphere summer, the oceans warm up and outgas CO2. During southern hemisphere winters, the oceans cool and absorb CO2.”

    During northern hemisphere winters, megatons of vegetative matter decay and releases CO2. During northern hemisphere summers, megatons of vegetative growth absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. I think total CO2 levels is more multifaceted than simply controlled by thermal heating of the southern oceans. But the directionality of those two things are the same.

    • R. Shearer says:

      One typically observes a shoulder in the data around the first of the calendar year which could be due to slowing of the decay to which you refer or it could have something to due with lower CO2 absorption in the Arctic from growing ice coverage.

      In any case, I think you are generally correct. The shoulder to which I refer is readily seen on the plot here: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html

      It’s just a matter of time for when peak CO2 is reached.

    • David A says:

      In the SH summer the sun is 6% closer to the earth; plus 70 watts per square m more directly entering two thirds of the oceans. This is very substantial.

  5. This is straight out of High School Chemistry, Henry’s Law, loosely, where temperatures and pressures in the water and air are those commonly found at Earth’s surface, “In aqueous solution, as the temperature of the solution increases, dissolved gases in the solution are driven into the air until the partial pressure of the gas in the air matches its pressure in the solution,” and conversely.
    It’s called Henry’s LAW, because it is a real physical law. You can see my post at our web site, https://casf.me/climate-shorts/ under “Henry’s Law from 175 years ago.”
    Tony shows the NCAR graphic which displays the Vostok Ice Cores. I would encourage readers to actually look at the data from Vostok, as shown in the link below. The present interglacial, the Holocene, has interglacial temperatures which are the coolest of the past 400,000 years. If CO2 controlled temperatures, as the alarmists say, with the current 410 PPM CO2 this would be the warmest of the interglacials, but the Holocene is the coolest for the five interglacials of the time domain of the Vostok Ice Cores.
    Tony and William Henry from 175 years ago are right, TEMPERATURES control CO2. The fundamental element of the warmist argument is flawed, because it violates Henry’s Law.
    I covered this in slides 9-34 of my OLLI UTEP class https://casf.me/olli-week-four/ the lesson “Climate History and El Nino ENSO.”
    While you are at our web site, you also might be interested in https://casf.me/climate-shorts/ the climate short, Examining The Hypothesis: “With all the carbon dioxide in the air today, Surface Temperatures in New Mexico are hotter than ever before in the Instrumental Record.”
    ROBERT W. ENDLICH

    • Disillusioned says:

      +1000
      Vostok is the graph in this post. Present day is bottom right corner of red rectangle on extreme right of graph.

  6. Doug  says:

    The fundamental flaw lies in the assumption that isothermal conditions would occur in a troposphere without GH gases. See screen captures of my comments that O’Sullivan deleted on the “PSI ERRORS” page of my website.

  7. Diana Trese says:

    I found this site because of a search started by a sentence in a book I bought at a junktique store. On page 86 of “From The Silent Earth” by Joseph Alsop, published in 1964, is the sentence, “He further portrays the 6-foot rise in sea level that began before the time of Our Lord and reached its climax about A.D. 500 as a genuine world catastrophe because it drowned most of the existing salt pans and other salt workings.” The book is about the Roman bronze age and at this point the author was speaking of a report about the influence of the availability of salt on various cultures through time written by M.R. Bloch. Mr. Bloch’s report was published by Scientific American in July 1963. So apparently it has been known that there have been vast changes in sea level for quite some time. I’m glad to have come upon your work, Mr. Endlich.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *