The Climate Change Puzzle

OPS-34 This OPS is more philosophical, and opinion related than most of the posts I put out. I have left it in the OPS section because there are plenty of references to data throughout the post.

The idea came to me while I was helping my daughter with this puzzle. She was working the border, I focused on the Unicorn. This is where I last saw the puzzle, but it struck me as a very good analogy for the Climate Change Discussion, so I snapped a picture and decided to have some fun with it.

#showusthedata #globalwarming #climatechange

The idea that CO2 is responsible for virtually all the warming over the Modern Temperature Record (MTR) is ludicrous. Firstly, half of the temperature rise occurred prior to 1950, but 80%+ of human CO2 emissions occurred after 1950. Secondly, more significant and regular temperature fluctuations occurred throughout the last 10,000 years (the Holocene interglacial warm period we are living through) despite a virtually flat CO2 level. The natural forcings (primarily solar or solar related) over the Holocene have not been magically turned off just because the IPCC computer modellers have decreed it to be so.

We are just entering a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) and those solar forcings are not included in the IPCC models. Historically, GSMs are devastating to human populations due to cold weather crop losses, starvation, disease and civil strife and the UN (IPCC) is intentionally ignoring those consequences. Consequences that will be evident over the next few years and last for the next couple of decades. Yet our political leaders worry about what might happen in 2100 (and try to make what is essentially a normal climate today seem scary). CO2’s theoretical climate sensitivity is simply not high enough to generate dangerous temperature levels (CSS-3). Except in the IPCC’s Virtual Reality (the Unicorn in the analogy) where CO2’s climate sensitivity is multiplied by a 3 times fudge factor (I mean a water vapour positive feedback). This feedback (like the CAGW theory/narrative) has no empirical data backing the hypothesis up.