Science behind Global Warming evaporates

global-warming-hoaxWhat happens to AB-32, CARB, Plan Bay Area, and SB-1, when the science on which Global Warming is based goes “poof?” Isn’t that judicially actionable? If there is no scientific basis for Alarmist claims, then the entire raison d’etre for activist screeching and Statist designs to turn the Bay Area into a Stalinist ant farm have lost all credibility.

Apparently, the only consensus left is that Global Warming models are worthless as they do not explain observed reality, history, or future trends. Even the UN IPPC report has strained to recognize the lack of any warning for the past 15 years. In fact, the IPPCC found the significant natural climate driver—solar surface radiation intensity—but went on to ignore it in the rest of its report, doubling down on its confidence in its own methods that have missed everything.

The truth is the main cause of Global Warming and anthropogenic climate change – and much less so for natural climate change, is the UN IPCC itself. With no small ClimateGate help of third-tier lab rats that sold out their integrity to live off the teat of government grants to help provide half-baked pudding for Progressive pols to hand out to a compliant mainstream media. The CO2 hypothesis and the Anthroprogenic jihad based on it has no scientific basis. Why spend any more money chasing this chimera and end up turning the Bay Area inside out for something that does not exist?

See Analysis of Global Warming hoax by D.E. Koelle

Between the Earth’s surface and the outer edge of the atmosphere we have the atmosphere with its clouds and aerosols, which determine how much solar radiation eventually reaches the surface of the Earth. Since 1983 the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Program (ISCCP) has been measuring global cloud coverage. One spectacular result was the decrease in global cloud cover between 1987 – 2000, from 69% to 64%, i.e. precisely during the period of warming that triggered the CO2 hypothesis.

Figure 1: Mid-term variation of mean global cloud coverage according to data from the ISCCP for the period 1983 to 2010.


Of course this finding did not fit well with the current popular narrative and was immediately criticized and doubted. This prevented it being adopted by the IPCC report of 2007. Indeed cloud observation and the evaluation of the data from satellites are difficult and the results are subject to interpretation. But in the meantime we have recognized that there is an objective method of determining the effects of clouds and the impact of solar dimming: by measuring the effective solar radiation at the surface of the Earth. For the first time this is discussed in the new IPCC report in Chapter 2.3.3 and is confirmed by the longest existing dataset from Stockholm. It shows a clear fluctuation of solar energy between 90 and 135 W/sqm. And the range is considerably greater at lower latitudes.


Figure 3: Real temperature measurement values from cities on the globe. The SSR curve correlates excellently with the original GISS dataset for the US temperature history yin 1999, before it was tampered with.


Figure 4: The original GISS temperature history for the USA as it looked in 1999. It was then replaced by a new curve which moved the maximum value to the year 1998.


Even if the important SSR factor gets mentioned for the first time in an IPCC report, this does not mean it was taken into account in other chapters of the report, and especially for the temperature development – to the contrary – it was ignored. Only the CO2 hypothesis is valid. Here the entire 0.8°C temperature rise of the last 100 years, for which part or all of it gets attributed to CO2, can be explained by the impacts of the effective solar radiation at the Earth’s surface without any CO2 effects.

Already the temperature rise of 0.6°C between 1910 and 1940 cannot be explained by the CO2 effect because the CO2 concentration increased by less than 10 ppm during the period (from 298 to 307 ppm). Then from 1940 to 1975 the temperature fell 0.2°C – and certainly not because of a CO2 drop. The renewed temperature increase of 0.6°C from 1980 to 1998 was the initiator of the CO2 hypothesis. However, the temperature increase can be better explained by the increase in SSR intensity. The fact that the predicted continued temperature increase never materialized, and that there’s been a slight drop since 2000, completely contradicts the CO2 hypothesis.

Print Friendly