Wednesday, 17 June 2020

The Real Reason?

Following on from my last post on the subject, I was prompted to wonder what was actually causing the current warming trend, given that the greenhouse gas theory appears to have more holes in it than a colander. With a search engine at your fingertips, there is no need to wonder. This website provided a link to the Milankovic cycles, along with the following Consensus-orthodox disclaimer,

"The past 100 years of global warming and CO2 accumulation is an entirely different topic than this blog--since the past 100 years of CO2 accumulation and temperature change is far outside of any range shown in the natural history record----therefore clearly caused by man."

before showing a graph that proved the precise opposite, with a much higher peak than today recorded the last time around.

That could be awkward, I thought, so went to one of NASA's websites. Surely NASA would give the true picture.

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity.

Well that's a good start, how do they explain that it was even hotter? They don't: all they do is state that, based on detailed data about the temperatures in the recent past which is not available for the previous ice ages, the rate of warming today is much faster than it has been before.

"But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events. As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

Unfortunately for the Consensus, a glance at their own graph shows that this is simply not true. During the recovery from the previous ice age the temperature is shown as rising 12C in less time than it has taken the temperature to rise 10C to today.

You wonder how they can do this with a straight face. Perhaps they don't.


Mark Wadsworth said...

Orthodoxy. Powerful force.

Dinero said...

In maths class that Paragraph from NASA gets a E - . It compares an average of a 5000 year period with an average of a 100 year period.

"....Celsius over about 5,000 years (*5000*). In the past century (*100*) alone, the temp...."

Very poor. The last paragraph gives the sense of the article overall but that does not excuse the previous paragraph.

Lola said...

That graph in the first link is priceless.

Bayard said...

Din, you have to wonder if they are looking at the same graph.
They say "the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius" when it's obvious from the graph that it has already risen 10C this time round and 12C the previous time. Added to that, the graph shows ups and downs near the present day, which means that the rate of increase over the last century is meaningless compared to the average increase since the last Ice Age because that increase was preceded by a fall.

It's a bit worrying that NASA is so bad at lying.