From the Iron-clad-science Dept: Wave strength increasing by .5% a year for past 70 years!

What?

This might be TLDR for most but here are my views on it.

For a start, CAGW has been debunked every which way from Sunday. The scandal of how Mann created his hockey stick is one example. So is East Anglian climategate. Then there’s the bogus 97% consensus that turned out to be an extreme abuse of statistics that bears absolutely no relationship to reality. There’s the innumerable places where the IPCC reports were edited to contradict the very climate scientists that supposedly contributed to them. There’s the falsification through extensive unwarranted secret “proprietary adjustments” of the historical records by NASA, NOAA and other governmental agencies. There’s the complete dominance of the IPCC by advocates, politicians and interns rather than climate scientists. It’s all a huge scandal that stinks worse with every passing year.

There’s the ridiculously hysterical alarmism that claims that we’re all going to drown because the ice caps will melt and the oceans will flood all the cities. And those of us who don’t drown will either starve to death or fry in catastrophic warming that will turn our planet into another Venus. Equally, the polar bears and the coral reefs will die, and the oceans will become acid baths. And just in case none of those things are enough, hurricanes and blizzards and all vaguely specified “extreme weather events” are also paradoxically blamed on global warming. It’s all ludicrous silliness worthy of Monty Python. There’s absolutely no danger of any of it happening. All have been debunked. And the absurd inclusion of perfectly ordinary winter weather and hurricanes as some of the effects of global warming makes the thesis unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific by definition.

There’s also the absolute ridiculousness of the chief claim itself. CO2 is 400 ppmv, or .04% of the atmosphere. The anthropogenic contribution to that is 3%, or .0012% of the atmosphere. But most of the greenhouse effect isn’t CO2 in the first place, it’s mostly due to water vapor and clouds (between 70% and 95%). Almost all of the variation in atmospheric CO2 is entirely natural and always will be. In particular, the oceans release many times (16x or more) the CO2 of humans. In addition there are volcanoes, life forms other than ourselves that also emit CO2 when they breathe and forest fires started by lightning. There are also the other probable natural contributors to climate cycles to be considered: variations in albedo, sunspot cycles, etc – not to mention that the CO2 levels always lag behind the temperature variations so it seems like temperature is the driver of CO2, not the other way around.

It should also be noted that average global temperature is only logarithmically sensitive to trace greenhouse gases such as CO2. In other words, if it could be proven that temperature rose 1 degree Celsius exclusively because of a CO2 doubling from 200 ppmv to 400 ppmv, then it would take another doubling from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv to produce the next 1 degree Celsius rise. None of these facts are in dispute, this is iron-clad science.

So we see then, that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 is a barely detectable increase in a trace gas contributing an insignificant and weakening minority of the greenhouse effect, which isn’t even the only system that has a warming effect on climate. Furthermore, the global climate system is prepared to gracefully handle many times that increase from natural sources. There’s actually no physical way possible that the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 could possibly have more than an extremely trivial effect on global climate. Only a homeopath (erroneously believes “dilution increases potency”) could possibly believe otherwise. It’s totally laughable and anybody with an ounce of independent thinking ability ought to immediately recognize just how ludicrous the entire thesis is.

Then there’s the fact that the climate models have been proven to be highly erroneous and without any predictive value whatsoever. They have predicted a “hot spot” in the atmosphere that has never been measured, and they have predicted far more warming than has been measured. There’s also the fact that the temperature measurements have, without exception, been well within the range known to the historical record, notwithstanding false claims that they are “unprecedented”. Computer models can’t even predict the weather with much skill, so why do we think we can use them to predict climate, especially given the erroneous data inputted into them?

The only country that really has a large number of weather stations is the USA. Thermometers in the rest of the world, especially the Southern hemisphere are extremely sparse. In terms of a global temperature mean, we don’t actually have enough data to give a reliable number to the resolution of a single degree Celsius. The climate experts are relying largely on interpolation, using rather dubious methods that assume, for instance, that weather is consistent over several hundred miles in each direction from a weather station, which may or may not keep daily records. And yet we’re trying to measure temperature increases that amount to perhaps a tenth of a degree per decade!?

It also needs to be pointed out that CO2 in the atmosphere is entirely natural and not a pollutant at all. It’s actually very beneficial to plant growth, serious greenhouse growers deliberately add CO2 to the air the plants breathe so that they grow better! Far from starving to death due to CO2 “pollution”, we would see an increase in food production with increased CO2 levels.

Last but by no means least, there are the temperature and CO2 surrogate records going back 2-3 billion years proving that this planet has enjoyed a relatively stable, life-supporting climate for that entire time, varying in average global temperature in a very narrow range (approx 275-300 Kelvin, or about 8.3%), even when CO2 levels were as high as 7000 ppmv. That is very strong empirical evidence that the runaway catastrophic feedback mechanism assumed by all the IPCC models simply does not exist. The global climate obviously has built-in thermostatic controls that climate science has not yet discovered.

It’s easy to observe some of the mechanisms that might contribute to thermostatic control of the global temperature. Adding global heat by whatever means will produce additional evaporation of ocean water, which will evaporatively cool both the ocean and the air above the ocean. The resulting increase in clouds will increase the earth’s albedo which will also have a cooling effect. The additional water in the air will eventually precipitate out and irrigate the plants growing on the land, increasing their abundance. Increasing plant life will also have a cooling effect on the immediate environment through additional evaporation. So we can see how the climate system immediately responds to increases in temperature with cooling effects, maintaining a relatively stable average global temperature.

We need to plant trees.

Look
If you own a lot of plastic shit and drive, then you obviously would prefer the earth to die than interrupt your convenience.
Yep, I know you ride a pushy but the commodore lurks, Dosent it?
https://youtu.be/hDzWTOaipQc

One sounds crunchy — like a soup full of resinous croutons — the other less desirable from an ecological perspective…

Sounds like a punishing PhD thesis. Is it because they tend to sit higher on the water than PU and Epoxy boards? I would’ve thought that that soft layer of foam would’ve absorbed more energy.

Very promising-looking righthand point on Heard Island. Wait for an approaching cold front to turn winds NW, and bingo!
Water temp is a balmy 4C at the mo – certainly a lot warmer than Denmark, Sweden and New England surfers are used to in winter – and swell would never be in short supply.