I’ll try to adress what you are saying, but you are so far in your own worldview that it will be…
Philipp Markolin
31

You have some serious flaws in your argument and logic.

1) I hope you are not suggesting climate science is like physics. This is something we should be able to agree on. Climate science is hard to test and has a very large number of variables like biology that are not well understood.

When climate scientists started this in the first IPCC report they tried to list all the things that could effect the climate and energy balance and what we knew about them and how much they could affect the climate. This is where they went wrong. From the very beginning they did things like say that the ocean had little or no effect and no cyclical effects over anything over a year. Similarly with the mantle. They said the sun couldn’t affect things very much. They said that we didn’t know much about all these things and they could have a huge effect but they don’t.

So, a big part of your argument is like a trap. You say: This is the explanation we’ve come up with. It works sort of. If it isn’t right then you have to explain what the alternative is.

From a scientific point of view that is valid. Science does operate that way. You come up with a theory and you explain what you can. I believed them initially.

However, things went wrong pretty fast. In fact, it’s almost funny that at the point they said they had 95% certainty the heating from CO2 caused 100% of the temperature change from 1975–1998 things started to fall apart. This attribution claim depended on their models matching the historical record so as to be able to claim they had natural variability nailed.

From the day they said this things seemed to go wrong. The temperatures went flat. For years they said this was normal. Wrong again. It went on and on. 10 years. 12 years. It was now a 3% change random event. The models showed temps going up like a rocket because the power of CO2 is sooooo great. It is supposed to cause 8 degrees Celsius temperature change from 100 parts per million. We were flat-lining as we were pouring in half an ice ago of CO2. How was this possible? When the deep ocean came in warmer a number of scientists jumped on that. Wrong. Even if it was right the models didn’t predict. Now the models were way off. They had been slowly adjusting the data but now they started putting in big adjustments. A few times a year they would adjust a little. Each adjustment was small so if anyone complained they could say: See, the data only changed a little. But the cumulative changes amounted to a huge discrepancy.

Alice Springs is 3C warmer in 1880 than its thermostats measured at the time. That’s huge. That’s 6 F for those who don’t do those calc’s easy. How could a thermostat be measuring temperatures that far off even with old technology. This is a good station. It has been reliable and there is no evidence of any problems. There are many stations like this. That’s how they doubled the land temperature change. The problem is the satellites don’t show this. They stopped referring to the satellites at all in research.

Here are the adjustments. A steady slow adjustment process each time a little increase in difference from the original data so that now there is 1.2F change. Wow. The effect of this adjustment process is almost perfectly to double the effect of co2.

But for me the killer is the fact when you remove the adjustments the data goes back to the satellites and balloons. Pretty much says it all.

I have another reason to believe the adjustments are in the end biased. I did a model myself of the temperature. I produced a model which assumed a 0.23C / 0.46C (top to bottom) amplitude PDO/AMO cycle with 60 year duration. A 1.2TCS for CO2 and small contributions for the sun and aerosols and my model using the unadjusted data produces a nearly perfect fit to the data. Really close. Much closer than the climate models that cost 10 billion dollars. I did this in an hour or two. My model would not work with adjusted data. In fact i couldn’t get any parameters of aerosols, sun, co2 and PDO/AMO to converge. It literally wouldn’t work.

So, you want to know the alternate theory. It’s incredibly simple. I just explained it. That’s all you need to create a nearly perfect fit to the data. You don’t need billions of cycles of computer time. You can do it on a google spreadsheet in seconds.

So, the problem as I explained in a different post is this leaves us with questions about how the ice ages happened if CO2 is 1/3 as powerful. I believe that recent studies showing massive numbers of ocean vents and studies showing that ocean vent eruptions correspond almost precisely with gravitational effects from the moon and sun on the earth put stress on the wobbly earth and a combination with another study which shows the ice caps moving from melt to frozen produces significant stress on the earths shape can explain a change in the amount of venting of mantle heat into the ocean. Combined with a longer wave ocean circulization pattern for LIA and MWP we have the basis for a new theory and the existing CO2 theory is dead.

You don’t have to accept my theory. I don’t know if it is true. What I’m saying is there are plausible explanations for how this happens without CO2. Lots of them actually. More important we don’t understand a lot of things with high possible impact. As a result it is OKAY to say climate people have a theory. What is wrong is for them to assert they are sure about it. It is a theory and there are huge unknowns and their certainty is very weak. That is what they should have said. Instead they were arrogant and made claims that were proved false almost immediately and every day practically there is another thing we discover that makes them look like idiots but you’ll never read it in the filter bubble. In the filter bubble it 6 feet by 2050 and 4 to 7C by 2100 even though that is science fiction.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated John the TIB’s story.