CLIMATE

‘Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature’

Israeli Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv
Table of Contents

    Translate this page into your preferred language Google.translate.com

    Israeli Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv – Pseudoscience on CO2

    How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted – ‘Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature’

    Professor Nir Shaviv, the chairman of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “The West would then realize that global warming never was and never will be a serious problem…To begin with, the story we hear in the media, that most 20th-century warming is anthropogenic, that the climate is very sensitive to changes in CO2, and that future warming will, therefore, be large and will happen very soon, simply isn’t supported by any direct evidence, only a shaky line of circular reasoning.”

    Shaviv: “There is no evidence on any time scale showing that CO2 variations or other changes to the energy budget cause large temperature variations. There is, however, evidence to the contrary. Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature; likewise, the climate response to large volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa.Both examples lead to the inescapable upper limit of 1.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling—much more modest than the sensitive IPCC climate models predict. However, the large sensitivity of the latter is required in order to explain 20th-century warming, or so it is erroneously thought.”

    Censorship: “My interview with Forbes. A few hours after the article was posted online, it was removed by the editors “for failing to meet our editorial standards.” The fact that it’s become politically incorrect to have any scientific discussion has led the public to accept the pseudo-argumentation supporting the catastrophic scenarios.”

    Earth can regulate its own temperature over millennia

    MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

    Scientists have confirmed that a “stabilizing feedback” on 100,000-year timescales keeps global temperatures in check.

    The Earth’s climate has undergone some big changes, from global volcanism to planet-cooling ice ages and dramatic shifts in solar radiation. And yet life, for the last 3.7 billion years, has kept on beating.

    Now, a study by MIT researchers in Science Advances confirms that the planet harbors a “stabilizing feedback” mechanism that acts over hundreds of thousands of years to pull the climate back from the brink, keeping global temperatures within a steady, habitable range.

    https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/971289#.Y3jjI2sSiLk

    Stanford Academic Freedom Conference Nov 4-5 2022

    Climate: Bjorn Lomborg and Noah Diffenbaugh
    Medicine (min 20) Jay Bhattacharya and John Ioannidis
    Moderator: John H. Cochrane

    https://youtu.be/OmK7hgbzW2k

    March 2018 Dr W Happer, Dr. S.E Koonin, Dr. R. S. Lindzen report

    1. The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena
    2. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to naturalenergy flows
    3. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can beascribed to human influences
    4. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salientclimate variables and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain

    David DuByne – a 400 Grand Solar Minimum cycle

    David DuByne presents at Alternative View May 2019 in the UK describing what a 400 Grand Solar Minimum cycle is and how it has effected societies in the past. Based on the past we can get a close in time line for changes you would expect to see. You decide for yourself. 

    https://youtu.be/mnpB_4fz1eY

    Lecture at TU Delft shows the “complete and utter bullshit” of climate politicians.

    Lezing bij TU Delft laat de ‘complete and utter bullshit’ van klimaatpolitici zien.
    Dutch Article on website Google translate version

    Video below in dutch language only. Youtube translation does a good job (for as long as it’s not censored)

    youtube: https://youtu.be/2Tst9-Be4nY

    prof. De Lange: The Netherlands does not have a ‘nitrogen crisis’

    Professor Kees de Lange, emeritus professor, but still fully active in science. He recently, together with fellow scientists from the American think tank the ‘CO2 Coalition’, put the finishing touches to an extensive scientific article on the ‘nitrogen problem’. The conclusion is clear: there is no ‘nitrogen crisis’. It is an official fabrication, based on a ‘model’ of the RIVM in which deviations of more than 100% from reality are the rule rather than the exception.
    https://indepen.nl/prof-de-lange-nederland-heeft-geen-stikstofcrisis/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7QdHXk_IIM

    NASA study – a geothermal heat lies deep below Antarctica

    Although the heat source isn’t a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet, it may help explain why the ice sheet collapsed rapidly in an earlier era of rapid climate change, and why it is so unstable today.

    An environmentalist’s apology: ‘I was guilty of alarmism’

    This article was originally published on Forbes website, but subsequently taken down.

    Here are some facts few people know:

    • Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’
    • The Amazon is not ‘the lungs of the world’
    • Climate change is not definitively making natural disasters worse
    • Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
    • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
    • Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have declined in Britain, Germany, and France from the mid-1970s 
    • Netherlands is becoming richer, not poorer while adapting to life below sea level 
    • We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
    • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are potentially larger threats to species than climate change
    • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
    • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less ‘industrial’ agriculture

    I know that the above facts will sound like ‘climate denialism’ to many, but that just shows the power of climate alarmism. 

    In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

    Economic “Normalization” of Disaster Losses 1998-2020

    This paper reviews 54 normalization studies published 1998 to 2020 and finds little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales can be attributed to human-caused changes in climate, reinforcing conclusions of recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

    Roger Pielke Jr.
    University of Colorado Boulder
    Environmental Hazards (in press, 2021)

    Climate facts Website

    https://www.klimaatfeiten.nl/ – (Google translate redirect)

    Ferdinand Meeus Doctor in de Wetenschappen (Chemie, fotofysica, fotochemie)
    Lid Alumni KU Leuven. IPCC expert reviewer AR6. Klimaatverandering is van alle tijden.

    Why global warming is good for us

    But because good news is no news, green pressure groups and environmental correspondents in the media prefer to ignore global greening. Astonishingly, it merited no mentions on the BBC’s recent Green Planet series, despite the name. Or, if it is mentioned, the media point to studies suggesting greening may soon cease. These studies are based on questionable models, not data (because data show the effect continuing at the same pace). 

    The biggest benefit of emissions is global greening, the increase year after year of green vegetation on the land surface of the planet. Forests grow more thickly, grasslands more richly and scrub more rapidly. This has been measured using satellites and on-the-ground recording of plant-growth rates. It is happening in all habitats, from tundra to rainforest. In the four decades since 1982, as Bjorn Lomborg points out, NASA data show that global greening has added 618,000 square kilometres of extra green leaves each year, equivalent to three Great Britains. You read that right: every year there’s more greenery on the planet to the extent of three Britains.

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/02/15/why-global-warming-is-good-for-us/

    Vegetation structural change since 1981 significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12257-8

    Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening
    • Long-term satellite records reveal a significant global greening of vegetated areas since the 1980s, which recent data suggest has continued past 2010.
    • Pronounced greening is observed in China and India due to afforestation and agricultural intensification.
    • Global vegetation models suggest that CO2 fertilization is the main driver of global vegetation greening.
    • Warming is the major cause of greening in boreal and Arctic biomes, but has negative effects on greening in the tropics.
    • Greening was found to mitigate global warming through enhanced land carbon uptake and evaporative cooling, but might also lead to decreased albedo that could potentially cause local warming.
    • Greening enhances transpiration, a process that reduces soil moisture and runoff locally, but can either amplify or reduce runoff and soil moisture regionally through altering the pattern of precipitation.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x

    The North Pacific is cooling and Antarctica is growing.

    Climate change has sparked a major debate amongst top climatology experts on how weather patterns are being affected by rising surface temperatures but it appears not all experts agree on how this effect is happening.

    As it turns out, We were Wrong: The North Pacific is cooling and Antarctica is growing.

    Weather patterns have seen some remarkable changes in the past decades, something which many might attribute to Climate Change but as it turns out, experts disagree that these changes might not be caused by Climate change at all.

    One of the major countries that sits right in the middle of these fluctuating weather changes is Australia. The country has been drastically affected by the famous La Ninã winds resulting in major flooding and cooler summers on the country’s east coast for the past couple of years.

    For those of us who might not be conversant with the La Ninã weather phenomenon, let’s break it down for you. La Niña is a major part of a natural climatic cycle that blows cool air over the tropical Pacific ocean. It is one part of a larger cycle with the other part being El Niño, which blows much warmer winds than La Niña.

    Both weather events alternate effects on both ends of the central and eastern tropical Pacific with sea surface temperatures varying between both events. Both weather events are collectively called the El Nino–Southern Oscillation or ENSO. The varying effects of La Ninã and El Niño have monumental effects on weather patterns bringing severe tropical rains and floods to one region while simultaneously bringing droughts to others and the cycle shifts.

    Although the climatic effects and impacts of ENSO are largely felt in regions around the tropical Pacific, these effects can very well extend to any part of the Globe making ENSO the prevalent force in driving global interannual climate variability.

    The effects of ENSO on precipitation and temperature change are prominently felt around East and Southern Africa, Southeast Asia, Western Americas, Australia, and Antarctica.

    https://youtu.be/U6JpmDqpzQY

    John Coleman – Founder of the Weather Channel

    John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has long been outspoken against the notion of man-made climate change, and after he penned an open letter, Brian Stelter invited the “climate denier” on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Sunday morning.

    “I resent you calling me a denier, that is a word meant to put me down,” Coleman told Stelter, pulling no punches right off the bat.
    “I’m a skeptic about climate change, not a denier.” Coleman then attacked CNN: CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming, that it is a consensus. Well there is no consensus in science.

    Science isn’t a vote. Science is about facts…[Man-made climate change] has been become a big political point of the Democratic Party and part of their platform, but the science is on my side. He added that he was happy he got a chance to tell CNN viewers,

    Coleman: “I resent you calling me a denier, that is a word meant to put me down. I’m a skeptic about climate change and I want to make it darn clear that Mr. Kennedy is not scientist, I am.
    Stelter: “I don’t think we’re gonna come to a conclusion about the topic right here–” Coleman: “Well, I know we’re not because you wouldn’t allow it to happen on CNN, but I’m happy that I got on the air and got a chance to talk to your viewers . . . Hello, everybody . . . There is no global warming.” Stelter: “What I do wonder is when you see the government, when you see NASA, when you see other institutions say that 97% of climate scientists agree, do you think they’re making it up? What I don’t understand is how you square that.”

    Coleman: “Well, that’s a manipulated figure and let me explain it to you. The government puts out about two-and-a-half billion dollars directly for climate research every year, it only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis of the Democratic Party, the position, so, they don’t have any choice. If you’re gonna get the money, you’ve gotta support their position, therefore, 97% of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is. It’s real simple, but that doesn’t mean it’s right, that doesn’t make it true, that only makes it bought and paid for, the money goes in circles.”

    Stelter: “I’m not a scientist, I’m not gonna try to refute you on the facts–” Coleman: “Well, that’s the truth. Please stand back from this issue and let the two sides be on the air. There are 31,000 scientists that have signed a petition that says it is not valid, that my position is correct, and we’ll keep battling, and we will prevail in time.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4rgILy06k

    Twitter Feeds

    Ferdinand Meeus
    Peter Clack

    Science was the final frontier of truth in a complex and evolving world. The United Nations has exploited and damaged the credibility of all science.

    Nir Shaviv

    Professor, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Interests: Astrophysics, Climate, Science. I’ll address *specific* science questions, general comments mostly ignore.
    http://www.sciencebits.com/https://www.climatedepot.com/