And that the "existential" rise in Temperature over the last Century is insignificant: less than 1/3 of a Standard Deviation of Century-to-Century Temperature changes:
Tim thanks for your comments. It is amazing that we can share views on a global basis. It is even more amazing that we can source data 3600 metres down into the ice in a remote part of Antarctica. I have also examined some of the Vostok station data although I only downloaded the 420,000 year data set. I came to pretty much the same conclusions as your self. I posted the following on Substack:
No, Mr. Andrews, the reign of climate hysteria terror is, regrettably, not over.
It has become an industry seeking (and gaining) massive wealth transfer and will double-down on deceit in the same fashion as every other industry seeking market dominance.
Sadly I think you are correct. The religion of climate change will prevail and data driven realities will be ignored. The investment literally and emotionally is so great that cognitive dissonance will rule the roost.
I truly want to be wrong about it all, but the psychopathy quotient of those effecting the wealth transfers is extraordinarily high.
Where power and wealth concentrate, predators and parasites congregate.
My experience has been that lying, cheating and stealing are part of the human condition and thus cannot be eliminated, but can and must be dampened and suppressed.
This is the value of certain voices that seem to be "crying out in the wilderness;" that they represent a grasp on reality, however tenuous at times, one that points the way back to sanity when the inevitable devastation finally becomes too evident to ignore.
Your work is not in vain. Don't stop writing and publishing. You are more effective than The Narrative would have you believe.
there is a shift, though, I believe. The puppet rag the LA Times has published a couple of climate fear porn articles lately and the comments on those posts on instagram are overwhelmingly dismissive and ridiculing. That all these negative comments got past the censors says some important shift has happened. People have suddenly stopped believing the nonsense in much larger numbers. I trust this trend will accelerate rapidly.
That may be of some significance, Ms. O'Keeffe, considering the venue.
Thank you for your observation; a bit of hope is never amiss.
There also seems to be some dawning comprehension in the legislative branch, but the voice of logic and reason seems dim and faded amidst the cacophony of hysterical screeching.
I had thought the notion of anthropogenicity an interesting theory, despite the early contribution of certain rather seedy and unsavory characters, so I took an interest and reviewed numerous articles, research papers and discussion forums.
What was immediately apparent was that any sincere questioning was met with truculence and ad hominem. This is a strong indicator of weak arguments buttressed by sophistry. A certain amount of arrogance among the erudite is to be expected, but it is a category error to conflate obscurantism and rhetoric with erudition.
I've encountered building contractors that purchased their license and could not efficiently construct a doghouse, and many in academia and industry with advanced degrees that could only construct a logical argument when eliding critical priors. A great deal of The Narrative is propagated by such people, and they have achieved a degree of regulatory capture unthinkable even a decade ago. It's not owing to strengthened arguments; It's a matter of incentives, and they are perverse indeed.
Nice one! And thanks to Metatron for sharing this very useful analysis.
PS: Am I the only person left who knows that data is the plural of the noun datum? Thus the correct use is to say this datum and these data. I guess I'm swimming against the tide on that one.
"There are many climate scientists who have devoted their lives to saving mankind"
correction, there are many "climate scientists" who have devoted their lives to following the herd,
take Steven Schneider for example:
"We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere.
It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"
Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Clearly yet another manipulative political narrative being foisted by the usual hysteria ridden control freak sociopaths out there then regurgitate by the gullible masses, just like the COVID lunacy. Since humans started burning fossil fuels atmospheric CO2 has only increased by about 1.4 parts in 10,000; a trace amount. There is no reason to believe that is having any material impact on global temperatures. And earth has been in a warming trend for the last 17,000 years so we shouldn't be surprised even if there has been marginal warming during the last few 100 years. Incidentally, when global temperatures change naturally they can do so very quickly. 17,000 years ago a sheet of ice five times the height of Seattle's Space Needle covered that location. A mere 800 years later, which isn't even an eye blink in Earth's history, the location had no permanent ice (research the Vashon Stade).
Those who haven’t revealed themselves as outright Zionazis (RFK, JP) are ignoring the health freedom rights of Palestinians in favour of droning on about direct energy weapons or are protesting against the development of alternative energy sources. They claim that any alternative to oil and gas will lead us directly back to the Stone Age. The man is happy with this; the man’s access to fossil fuel is partly what is causing the genocide of people of the wrong colour who are sitting on top of $millions worth of it in Gaza. Protesting for continued reliance on fossil fuels, rather than energy independence, promotes continued wars, genocides, profits and dominance by the man.
I have the full 800,000 year Vostok Ice Core Data Set on my computer. These DATA show that:
CO2 LAGS Temperature (i.e., Temperature causes CO2) by about 800 years [https://timellison.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-global-warming-ii-];
And the CO2 LAGS Temperature by 10 - 20 Thousand Years when the earth goes into an Ice Age:
[https://timellison.substack.com/p/antrhopogenic-global-warming-iii];
And that the "existential" rise in Temperature over the last Century is insignificant: less than 1/3 of a Standard Deviation of Century-to-Century Temperature changes:
[ https://timellison.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-global-warming-iv]
Most importantly, it has been shown that changes in the Earth's Orbit are the Timekeeper-of-the-Ice-Ages:
[https://timellison.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-global-warming-vi-milankovitch] and
[https://timellison.substack.com/p/hoisting-mr-gore-on-his-own-petard].
The "Climate Crisis" is a Religion, not Science:
https://timellison.substack.com/p/the-dawn-of-a-new-religion
Tim thanks for your comments. It is amazing that we can share views on a global basis. It is even more amazing that we can source data 3600 metres down into the ice in a remote part of Antarctica. I have also examined some of the Vostok station data although I only downloaded the 420,000 year data set. I came to pretty much the same conclusions as your self. I posted the following on Substack:
https://open.substack.com/pub/sandrews/p/we-are-all-doomed?r=16e1vo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
No it is not game over because the evidence was never important, the financial rip off and wrecking Western industry were important.
....and in many cases, grasping for relevance?
I don't fault 'Honest' Scientific Research. But, an entire industry has sprung up around "Climate".
In truth, we have No Scientific Data before 1800. All the rest is modelling and theory.
The charts generated from various fields of inquiry only tell us what conditions allow human civilization to survive and thrive through.
Here is a much longer-term reconstruction from the website of my colleague Ed Hoskins showing the precarious nature of the inter-glacial we are living in: https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/screen-shot-2014-03-19-at-16-28-43.png
No, Mr. Andrews, the reign of climate hysteria terror is, regrettably, not over.
It has become an industry seeking (and gaining) massive wealth transfer and will double-down on deceit in the same fashion as every other industry seeking market dominance.
Sadly I think you are correct. The religion of climate change will prevail and data driven realities will be ignored. The investment literally and emotionally is so great that cognitive dissonance will rule the roost.
I truly want to be wrong about it all, but the psychopathy quotient of those effecting the wealth transfers is extraordinarily high.
Where power and wealth concentrate, predators and parasites congregate.
My experience has been that lying, cheating and stealing are part of the human condition and thus cannot be eliminated, but can and must be dampened and suppressed.
This is the value of certain voices that seem to be "crying out in the wilderness;" that they represent a grasp on reality, however tenuous at times, one that points the way back to sanity when the inevitable devastation finally becomes too evident to ignore.
Your work is not in vain. Don't stop writing and publishing. You are more effective than The Narrative would have you believe.
there is a shift, though, I believe. The puppet rag the LA Times has published a couple of climate fear porn articles lately and the comments on those posts on instagram are overwhelmingly dismissive and ridiculing. That all these negative comments got past the censors says some important shift has happened. People have suddenly stopped believing the nonsense in much larger numbers. I trust this trend will accelerate rapidly.
That may be of some significance, Ms. O'Keeffe, considering the venue.
Thank you for your observation; a bit of hope is never amiss.
There also seems to be some dawning comprehension in the legislative branch, but the voice of logic and reason seems dim and faded amidst the cacophony of hysterical screeching.
I had thought the notion of anthropogenicity an interesting theory, despite the early contribution of certain rather seedy and unsavory characters, so I took an interest and reviewed numerous articles, research papers and discussion forums.
What was immediately apparent was that any sincere questioning was met with truculence and ad hominem. This is a strong indicator of weak arguments buttressed by sophistry. A certain amount of arrogance among the erudite is to be expected, but it is a category error to conflate obscurantism and rhetoric with erudition.
I've encountered building contractors that purchased their license and could not efficiently construct a doghouse, and many in academia and industry with advanced degrees that could only construct a logical argument when eliding critical priors. A great deal of The Narrative is propagated by such people, and they have achieved a degree of regulatory capture unthinkable even a decade ago. It's not owing to strengthened arguments; It's a matter of incentives, and they are perverse indeed.
completely agree. Incentives are plain, obvious to any with eyes, and now coming to more light than ever:
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
I trust this light-shining will continue more and more intensely. Per Galadriel, yet, hope remains while the company is true.
Nice one! And thanks to Metatron for sharing this very useful analysis.
PS: Am I the only person left who knows that data is the plural of the noun datum? Thus the correct use is to say this datum and these data. I guess I'm swimming against the tide on that one.
No, there are two of us.
Three of us
Pedants of the world, unite!
I have been scratching my head about this for ages already.
LOL!!!!
"There are many climate scientists who have devoted their lives to saving mankind"
correction, there are many "climate scientists" who have devoted their lives to following the herd,
take Steven Schneider for example:
"We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere.
It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"
Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Clearly yet another manipulative political narrative being foisted by the usual hysteria ridden control freak sociopaths out there then regurgitate by the gullible masses, just like the COVID lunacy. Since humans started burning fossil fuels atmospheric CO2 has only increased by about 1.4 parts in 10,000; a trace amount. There is no reason to believe that is having any material impact on global temperatures. And earth has been in a warming trend for the last 17,000 years so we shouldn't be surprised even if there has been marginal warming during the last few 100 years. Incidentally, when global temperatures change naturally they can do so very quickly. 17,000 years ago a sheet of ice five times the height of Seattle's Space Needle covered that location. A mere 800 years later, which isn't even an eye blink in Earth's history, the location had no permanent ice (research the Vashon Stade).
Those who haven’t revealed themselves as outright Zionazis (RFK, JP) are ignoring the health freedom rights of Palestinians in favour of droning on about direct energy weapons or are protesting against the development of alternative energy sources. They claim that any alternative to oil and gas will lead us directly back to the Stone Age. The man is happy with this; the man’s access to fossil fuel is partly what is causing the genocide of people of the wrong colour who are sitting on top of $millions worth of it in Gaza. Protesting for continued reliance on fossil fuels, rather than energy independence, promotes continued wars, genocides, profits and dominance by the man.
The highest temperatures during the past 150 years were in the 1930’s, known as the “”Dust Bowl Years” in the US.