33 Bullet Points Proving "Global Warming" Is Caused By The Sun, Not CO2 - By Geologist, Dr Roger Higgs - Part 1

[AlleyCat]

33 Bullet Points Proving "Global Warming" Is Caused By The Sun, Not CO2 - By
Geologist, Dr Roger Higgs - Part 1

June 13, 2023 Cap Allon

Dr Roger Higgs (DPhil geology, Oxford, 1982-86)
Geoclastica Ltd and ResearchGate (click here for links to sources)

Abbreviations:
'AD" = anno Domini
'BC" = years "before Christ'
'BP" = years "before present', from radiocarbon dating. 0 is 1950AD by
convention
~ = about/approximately

1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no
geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) and
at most 1 geologist in the next report (due 2022; see my Technical Note 2019-
10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 170 years (since multiple reliable
thermometer measurements began, ~1850), yet Earth is 26 million (sic) times
older, 4.5 billion years. Geologists know that throughout this time Earth has
constantly warmed or cooled (never static). Thus "climate change" is nothing
new; it is perfectly usual. During the last 11,650 years, our current
"Holocene" interglacial epoch, climate change has repeatedly been fast enough
to cause collapse of civilisations (Bullet 20).

2A) The IPCC's very existence relies on public belief in "Anthropogenic (man-
made) Global Warming" (AGW) by CO2 emissions. Most IPCC authors, mainly
government and university researchers, are biased by strong vested interests in
AGW (publications; continuance of salaries; research grants).

2B) Similarly, universities have sacrificed their impartiality by hosting
institutes financially mandated to promote AGW. For example, London's former
bastion of scientific integrity Imperial College has, since 2007, housed the
"Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment', founded and funded
by investment magnate Jeremy Grantham (heavily involved in forest destruction
for biomass energy according to the 2019 Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs documentary
"Planet of the Humans'). The "Tyndall Centre for Climate Research" (founded
2000) has branches at the Universities of Cardiff, Manchester, Newcastle and
Fudan, and also at the University of East Anglia, in the same building as the
infamous IPCC-linked Climatic Research Unit (CRU; Wiki "Climategate').

2C) Well-known scientists formerly associated with the IPCC have subsequently
denounced its methods.

3) Claimed "97% consensus among scientists" that AGW exists is a deception. It
refers in fact to polls of recent publications by only "climate scientists',
i.e. atmospheric specialists, lacking deep-time perspective (Bullet 1), who
deal with "climate models" (Bullet 6). Graduation and employment of "climate
scientists" opportunistically boomed in the AGW hysteria since 1990, lavishly
funded, creating a strong incentive for bias (Bullet 2). The vast majority of
the world's normal scientists, numbering millions and lacking any financial
bias, are not part of the "consensus', having never been polled, myself
included. In November 2019 Wikipedia deleted its "List of scientists who
disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming" (Bullet 29).

4) No informed person "denies" global warming: it has been measured (Bullet
11). "Global-warming denier" is a deceitful term, with intentionally despicable
connotations, for doubters and deniers of "Anthropogenic (man-made) Global
Warming" (AGW), probably the majority of the world's scientists.

5A) The "greenhouse effect ... a slight misnomer" (Wiki; in fact a complete
misnomer; see their references) ... "is the process by which radiation from a
planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface" (Wiki, citing IPCC). This bold
claim that Earth's land- and ocean surfaces are warmed by the air is
"backwards'. In truth the (solar-warmed) ocean warms the atmosphere, as shown
by two observations: (1) ocean-surface water (covering ~70% of Earth) is almost
everywhere warmer (fractionally) than the air above it; and (2) changes in
global average surface air temperature lag 1 to 1.5 months behind corresponding
changes in global sea-surface temperature. These two facts indicate that heat
(only capable of flowing one way, from warmer to cooler) flows outward, from
the ocean to the air, not vice versa. A truthful summary of the greenhouse
effect is that solar energy absorbed at Earth's surface is radiated back into
the atmosphere as heat, some of which is absorbed on its way out to space by
greenhouse gases. Thus greenhouse gases cause no warming; instead they reduce
the air's heat loss to space.

5B) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" (GHG). Due to the "saturation effect', CO2's
theoretical heat-trapping ability sharply (logarithmically) declines as its
concentration rises. CO2's Climate Sensitivity (CS) is the hypothetical warming
due to a doubling of CO2. IPCC "estimates" CS, based on defective (Bullet 6)
climate models (circular reasoning), as probably between 1.5 and 4.5C°, a 300%
contrast! According to a landmark new paper by van Wijngaarden & Happer (2020),
CS for doubling from 400 to 800ppm is theoretically 1.4 to 2.3C°, but their
calculations assume cloud-free conditions; the effect of clouds, which cover
about two-thirds of Earth at any moment (Wiki "Cloud cover'), is very uncertain
(Bullet 5C).

=====

June: Soooooo Hot!

Thick Ice Forces Russian Ships To Take The Long Way Round

Record Cold Across Belarus And Latvia

Chill Stretches Perth Power To The Brink

Alerts Issued As Cold Front Smacks Western Australia

Freezing Lows Sweep New Zealand

June Snow In Colorado

'Gold Rush 2.0" Thanks To California's Historic Snowpack

Impressive Greenland SMB Gains

Bone-Chilling Lows Grip Northern India

Extreme Chills Grip Northern Europe

Shimla's Record-Cold Start To June

=====

May: Soooo Hot!

May Down Under: Forecast vs Reality

China's Colder-Than-Average May

Low Temperature Records Continue To Fall Down Under

Australia's Record-Cold May

Australia's Coldest-Ever May Temperatures

Record Cold Continues To Sweep Australia

Record Monthly Cold Sweeps Queensland

Australia Suffers Record Lows And Early Snows

Anomalously-cold temperatures across the entire continent of Arsetralia

Another Cooler-Than-Average Month Down Under

Bone-Chilling Lows Grip Northern India
NOAA: Low Temp Records Outstripping Heat By 2-1
"Unprecedented" Frosts Destroy Northeast Vineyards, Orchards...
Australia Sees Year-Round Snowpatches, As Record Cold Persists
Frosts Sweep Europe
UK's Year Without A Spring
"Pneumonia Front" To Sweep Midwest
Alaska's Fourth Cold Winter In A Row
Record Frosts Sweep The Ukraine And Russia
Winter Arrives Early In New Zealand
Cold Czech Republic
Northern India's Coldest Start To May Since 1987
Mongolia's Brutally Cold Winter Kills Livestock -
Leaves 212,000 People In Need Of Aid
Pakistan's Frigid April
Cold Winter Reduces North Dakota Mule Deer Numbers
Alaska's Very Cold April
Cold And Wet Kenya
Eastern Europe's Freezing April Spills Into May
Historic May Cold On Course For Michigan
Record Cold Sweeps India
Solar Activity Down, Global Temperatures Down
Arctic Sea Ice Up
Six Straight Cold Months For Cheyenne
Nome's "Coldest April In A lifetime"
Cool UK
Record Cool Latvia
Reversed Polarity Sunspot

[Alan]

On 2023-06-13 14:22, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> 33 Bullet Points Proving "Global Warming" Is Caused By The Sun, Not CO2 - By
> Geologist, Dr Roger Higgs - Part 1
>
> June 13, 2023 Cap Allon
>
> Dr Roger Higgs (DPhil geology, Oxford, 1982-86)
> Geoclastica Ltd and ResearchGate (click here for links to sources)
>
> Abbreviations:
> 'AD" = anno Domini
> 'BC" = years "before Christ'
> 'BP" = years "before present', from radiocarbon dating. 0 is 1950AD by
> convention
> ~ = about/approximately
>
> 1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no
> geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) and
> at most 1 geologist in the next report (due 2022; see my Technical Note 2019-
> 10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 170 years (since multiple reliable
> thermometer measurements began, ~1850), yet Earth is 26 million (sic) times
> older, 4.5 billion years. Geologists know that throughout this time Earth has
> constantly warmed or cooled (never static). Thus "climate change" is nothing
> new; it is perfectly usual. During the last 11,650 years, our current
> "Holocene" interglacial epoch, climate change has repeatedly been fast enough
> to cause collapse of civilisations (Bullet 20).

That is no proof at all.

And I'd bet that all the rest of as little by way of proof as this one.

[Kym Horsell]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 7:32:57 AM UTC+10, Alan wrote:

The primitive hillbilly mind can only keep track of
one thing at a time.
This 1960's PR is trying to argue something like
"fire is caused by a match and not oxygen".

The energy for GW comes from the sun -- big surprise -- but keeping it trapped near the earth is due to the greenhouse gases in the atm.

Without CO2 and other GHG the Earth at this distance from the sun would be a full-time frozen ball and about 30C colder than it was in the 1950s.

Adding more GHG thickens up "the mirror in the sky" that traps heat near the earth. The surface warms up; the upper atm cools down. And the fosil companies count their money and laugh at the deluded nitwits that have been indoctrinated by their 50yo PR spin that 1 min say one thing
and the next say the opposite without realizing it.


--
It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement -- it is well understood
by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the
way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming 101", 2008
<https://climatecrock.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/spencer.jpg>

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 14:32:53 -0700, Alan says...

> That is no proof at all.

https://i.imgur.com/sJcC89l.mp4

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyY1IsNXsAMwN-H?format=jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyY2TulWAAALZAe?format=jpg&name=large

5C) Despite CO2's greenhouse-warming potential, evidently the Sun (not CO2)
governed our climate for at least the last 2,000 years, based on good
correlation between solar-magnetic output (SMO) and Earth's average surface
temperature (Bullet 12), in contrast to CO2's non-correlation (Bullet 12B)
except the partial coincidence (by chance) of its strong rise since 1850 (start
of Industrial Revolution) versus "Modern Warming" (1815 to present-day; Bullet
11) and SMO's ~1700-1991 surge. This proves that CO2's greenhouse-warming
potential, already fallen logarithmically "well into the saturation regime", is
negated by feedbacks. Two natural feedbacks ignored in IPCC climate models are:
(i) little known cloud feedback; and (ii) "potentially very important"
increased biogenic "BVOC" aerosol due to faster forest growth by warming & CO2
fertilization. (The only feedbacks listed in IPCC's influential 2013 Fifth
Assessment Report figure SPM.5 are man-made ones, with very wide "uncertainty
intervals".) IPCC admits "aerosols and their interactions with clouds have
offset a substantial portion of global mean forcing from ... greenhouse gases.
They ... contribute the largest uncertainty"; and "quantification of cloud and
convective effects in models, and of aerosol-cloud interactions, continues to
be a challenge." IPCC's underestimation of negative feedbacks explains why
climate models run too hot (Bullet 6), and why "runaway" warming has apparently
never occurred on Earth.

6A) Computer "climate models" (by "climate scientists'; Bullet 3) are so full
of assumptions (stacked upon other assumptions) as to be highly misleading at
best, e.g. 1985-2015 warming forecast by 31 models turned out 2 to 4 times too
high. Even pro-IPCC "tricky Wiki" (Bullet 29) admitted: "Each model simulation
has a different guess at processes that scientist don't understand sufficiently
well".

6B) Climate models ignore three crucial factors: (i) natural cloud and aerosol-
cloud feedbacks (Bullet 5C); (ii) large changes in solar magnetic output (SMO;
Bullet 12A), driving global temperature changes according to the Svensmark
Theory, denied by the IPCC (Bullet 14), which disingenuously says "total solar
irradiance" (TSI; varies in step with SMO but proportionally far less) varies
much too little to affect climate, so CO2 must be in charge; likewise the CRU
(Bullet 2B); and NASA, which went so far as to publish "Atmospheric CO2:
Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature" in 2010; (iii) "ocean-
lag', the multi-decade delay between changes in SMO and correlative changes in
temperature (Bullet 21). These three IPCC failings, "Sun denial', ocean-lag
omission, and feedback underestimation, render climate modelling conducted to
date worthless.

7A) For much of the last 550 million years (Phanerozoic time), atmospheric CO2
was 2 to 10 times higher than now. Evolution flourished. Plant photosynthesis,
the basis of all life, was stimulated by higher CO2 (Bullet 8). Extinction
events due to overheating by CO2 are unknown.

7B) Throughout Phanerozoic time, CO2 seemingly correlated well with temperature
(although all studies inevitably have low resolution). This is readily
explained by warming oceans releasing CO2 and vice versa (Bullets 9, 10).

8A) Through Holocene time, atmospheric CO2 was a mere 250-285 ppm (i.e. near
plant-starvation level of ~150 ppm; Wiki "CO2 fertilization effect'; also
Bullet 27), until ~1850 when mankind's industrial CO2 emissions began. Since
then, atmospheric CO2 has climbed steeply. Proving that man's emissions are the
main driver of this post-1850 rise in CO2, ice cores show that the last five
interglacial periods (including the Holocene) all reached levels of 250-300
ppm, i.e. a sort of "equilibrium" value. CO2 today (January 2021), 415 ppm, is
still only 0.04% of our atmosphere (i.e. less than half of one-tenth of 1%),
far less than in the past (Bullet 7).

8B) The present CO2 level of 415ppm is far from hazardous to human health, e.g.
CO2 levels in American Navy submarines typically average 3,000-4,000ppm with no
reported ill effects. Benefits of rising CO2, thanks to the "CO2 fertilization
effect', include expansion of natural forests ('greening" of the planet) and
increased agricultural productivity, essential for feeding Earth's burgeoning
population. Thus, ironically, man's production of CO2 by burning fossil fuels
(for energy and transport) has unintentionally averted, or at least postponed,
a global food crisis. Commercial growers inject CO2 into their greenhouses.
"CO2 enrichment in greenhouses allows crops to meet there (sic) photosynthesis
potential." "For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about
1,000-1,300 ppm ... Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%-
10%), improve crop quality and yield".

9) Until man began adding industrial CO2 about 1850, global warming (determined
from "proxies" like tree rings) since the ~1815 cold peak of the Little Ice Age
(~1250-1920) was accompanied by a very slight rise in CO2 (measured in ice
cores). A simple explanation is the well-known release of CO2 by warming ocean
water (decreasing its CO2-holding capacity).

10) Other evidence, besides Bullet 9, that rising CO2 is a consequence, not
cause, of global warming is that Quaternary glacial-interglacial temperature
changes were followed "very closely" by changes in CO2. Based on ice-core data,
the time-lag is somewhere between 400 years and zero, possibly even slightly
negative. However, based on direct thermometer and CO2 measurements covering
the last few decades, changes in CO2 lag behind ~5 months according to Kuo et
al. (1990) and 11-12 months according to Humlum et al. (2013).

11) Thermometer records since 1750 show 2.1C° warming (global land average)
since 1815 (Little Ice Age nadir; Bullet 9). This "Modern Warming" (name
proposed here) was interrupted by two 30-year coolings (1880-1910, 1945-1975,
0.2C° each) and the 1998-2013 "Global warming hiatus" (Wiki); and by frequent
brief (1-3 years) minor coolings, some attributable to mega-volcano "winters"
(1-10years) and perhaps to El Niño/La Niña events (seldom if ever exceed 2
years). After the first 30-year cooling, global average warming was 1.3C° from
1910 to 2016 (slight cooling since then [Bullet 13]). In contrast, since the
start of industrial CO2 additions ~1850 (Bullet 8), CO2's rise has accelerated,
with only a brief pause (1887-97) and a mini-reversal (1940-45), both during
the 30-year coolings, and both attributable to CO2's increasing solubility in a
cooling ocean (Bullet 9). The 30-year coolings match solar-output downturns,
after applying a temperature lag of ~100 years due to "ocean memory" (Bullet
21). There is no other viable explanation.

12A) This unsteady "sawtooth" (up-down) style of post-1815 "Modern Warming"
(Bullet 11) mimics the sawtooth rise in solar-magnetic output (SMO) from ~1700
(end of sunspot-defined "Maunder Minimum') to 1991 (peak of SMO Sun's modern
"Grand Maximum" [GM; 1937-2004]; NB sunspot peak was earlier, 1958). A good
cross-match is obtained by applying a temperature delay of ~100 years ('ocean-
lag'; Bullet 21), thereby aligning the two 30-year coolings (Bullet 11) with
two solar declines. SMO's ~1700-1991 surge was both the strongest (amplitude)
and highest in at least 9,000 years, increasing 350% from 1700 to 1950 and, in
the 20th Century alone, 131% from 1901 to 1991, and 41% from 1964 to 1996. "The
last period which showed similar high activity and also lasted as long as the
current one was about 1700 years ago" (Steinhilber et al. 2008). That
particular ~300AD GM caused warming (and drove a global 2-3m sea-level rise,
the "Romano-British Transgression', portending another such rise imminently
(Bullet 24). Thus I propose that the Sun drove Modern Warming (via the
Svensmark cosmic ray/cloud mechanism [Bullet 14]), with negligible or no help
from CO2, in the same way that earlier (lesser) GMs of the last 8,000 years
clearly correlate with (lesser) warmings (Bullet 12B).

12B) Similarly, since at least 2,000 years ago, solar-magnetic output (SMO)
correlates well with temperature (proxy temperatures from tree rings, ice
cores, etc. in the pre-thermometer era before 1750). Both graphs have a hockey-
stick shape (Bullet 32): the "shaft" is an overall ~1,200-year decline from ~
400AD to the Little Ice Age (LIA; Bullet 9), with superimposed 50-200-yr
smaller up-down "sawteeth'; the "blade" is the post-1700 surge (Bullet 12A).
Applying a temperature lag of ~100-150 years (Bullet 21) aligns: (i) the Sun's
~300AD GM (Bullet 12A) and the ~450AD highest temperature of the last 2,000
years (possibly surpassed by Modern Warming); and (ii) the ~1700 LIA solar
minimum and the 1815 LIA minimum temperature (Bullet 12A). Moreover, the graphs
have the same proportionality: ~3:2 ratio of surge height versus sawtooth
amplitude; and ~1:1 height ratio of the shaft and blade. In contrast, CO2's
correlation with temperature for the last 2,000 years is very poor: the only
(partial) match is CO2's surge since ~1850 (start of Industrial Revolution).
CO2 mismatches are: (i) slight overall rise from 500AD into the LIA (i.e.
"shaft" gradient is backwards); (ii) sawteeth are minuscule; and (iii) the two
30-year solar- and temperature declines (Bullet 12A) are missing. Further back
in time, despite decreasing proxy availability and looser dating, correlation
is also evident for at least the last 8,000 years, superimposed on long-term
slight cooling due to Earth's declining axial obliquity since ~8,500BP (google
Milankovitch orbital forcing).

13) 2016 was the warmest year "since records began', i.e. only since ~1850,
when a reliable global thermometer network existed. 2017, 2018 and 2019 were
all cooler. (NB no volcanic mega-eruption since 1991). Yet CO2 is still rising.
So every passing day that isn't "warmest ever recorded" for that date at
multiple sites worldwide is awkward for the IPCC.

14) The breathtakingly elegant and simple "Svensmark Theory" says rising solar-
magnetic output, by deflecting more cosmic rays, reduces cloudiness. This
allows more of the Sun's warmth to heat the ocean and hence the atmosphere
(Bullet 5A), instead of being reflected back out into space by clouds. In
support, a NASA study of satellite data spanning 1979-2011 (during the "Modern
Warming'; Bullet 12) showed decreasing cloud cover. The IPCC dismisses
Svensmark's theory.

15) Vocal climate scientist, computer modeller, IPCC lead author, and recipient
of a 1999 US$1 million private donation to work on his alarming idea that man-
made warming might stop "Atlantic conveyor belt" ocean circulation, with dire
consequences for regional climate (cooling), ecosystems and society, Stefan
Rahmstorf (Wiki) of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research wrongly
said in 2008: "there is no viable alternative ... [to CO2 as driver of 1940-
2005 warming, as] ... different authors agree that solar activity did not
significantly increase". Yet in 1999, physicist Dr Michael Lockwood FRS (Wiki)
and co-authors wrote in prestigious Nature journal that from 1964 to 1996 "the
total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4" and from 1901
to 1992 by 2.3! Supporting Lockwood's work, Steinhilber et al. (2010) showed
that "Since the year 1700, the open solar magnetic flux has increased by about
350%".

16) Lockwood (Bullet 15) showed that averaged solar magnetic flux increased
230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled. The ongoing (ocean-lagged)
warming that followed the 1945-75 cooling (Bullet 5) was driven by this solar
surge, via the Svensmark effect (Bullet 14), delayed by "ocean memory" (Bullet
21), which will ensure continued warming for several more decades. Bullets 17
and 18 also support Svensmark's theory.

17) After the ~300AD solar Grand Maximum (Bullet 12), between 350 and 450
global average temperature warmed to near today's value. Subsequent "sawtooth"
cooling mimicked the Sun's 1,000-year sawtooth decline into the Little Ice Age
(Bullet 9).

18) In the "Holocene Climatic Optimum" (Bullet 20) spanning 8,000 to 2,000BC,
Earth was warmer than now except for about five interludes of a few decades
each. Unsteady cooling from 3,000BC to the Little Ice Age (Bullet 9) paralleled
unsteady solar decline.

19) This 4,500-year-long cooling mocks IPCC computer models that instead
predict warming by the simultaneous (slow) rise in CO2. This is the "The
Holocene Temperature Conundrum" of Liu et al. (2014). See also Bullet 6.

20) Embarrassingly for the IPCC, the 8000-2000BC warm interval (Bullet 18) was
already called the "Holocene Climatic Optimum" (Wiki) before IPCC's "CO2 =
pollutant" fallacy induced today's AGW hysteria and pointless multi-trillion-
dollar climate-change industry. The warmth may have benefited development of
human civilisations.

21) For at least the last 1,700 years, sawtooth-style global warming/cooling
correlate well with solar-magnetic activity (Bullet 12) by applying an "ocean-
memory" lag of 60-160 years (varying with time), attributable to oceanic
thermal inertia (vast ocean volume, high heat capacity and slow
circulation/mixing; Bullet 6), causing delayed response to changes in solar-
magnetic flux, hence cloudiness, which governs global temperature (Bullet 14).

22) The IPCC says ongoing global warming despite solar weakening (since 1991;
Bullet 12) disqualifies the Sun as the cause of warming. This disingenuously
ignores the time-lag caused by oceanic thermal inertia, of which the IPCC is
well aware, and which brings the Sun's past "ups-and-downs" ('sawteeth') into
alignment with global temperature ups-and-downs (Bullet 12). Thus one of only
three pillars upon which the "Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming" dogma
stands is demolished. The other two, namely (i) simultaneous warming and
acceleration in CO2 since 1850 (a chance coincidence; Bullet 24), and (ii) the
30cm sea-level rise since 1850 supposedly unprecedented in 2,000 years (Bullet
26), are equally easy to dismiss.

23) The last interglacial period, ~120,000 years ago, was warmer than our
Holocene interglacial. Humans and polar bears survived! CO2 was then about 275
ppm, i.e. lower than now (Bullet 8), at a time of greater warmth!

24) The joint rise of temperature and CO2 is a "spurious correlation', mere
chance. Earth's temperature correlates much better with solar output, which
increased just as impressively in the 20th Century (Bullet 12). So IPCC's
demonising of CO2 as a "pollutant" is a colossal blunder, costing trillions of
dollars in needless and ineffectual efforts to reduce it. Instead, governments
need to focus urgently on the imminent metre-scale Sun-driven sea level rise.

25) Although the Sun is now declining since its 1991 magnetic peak (Bullet 12),
solar-driven global warming will continue until ~2050 due to "ocean-lag',
presently ~60 years (Bullet 21). Meanwhile rising CO2 will continue to raise
global food production (Bullet 8), without affecting climate (Bullet 5).
Cooling will begin ~2050 and last at least 28 years (i.e. post-1991 solar-
magnetic decline to date). Sadly our benign Holocene "interglacial" period will
eventually end, inevitably, by Milankovitch orbital forcing (Bullet 12), much
more powerful than solar changes.

26) IPCC says sea level (SL) from 0 to 1800AD varied < 25 centimetres (and < 1
metre since 4000BC) and never exceeded today's SL, therefore the 30-centimetre
SL rise measured since 1850 is abnormal, they say, blaming industrial CO2. But
this claim, based on flawed cherry-picked evidence, ignores dozens of studies
of geological and archaeological 3000BC-1000AD SL benchmarks globally, which
reveal 3 or 4 rises (and falls) of 1-3 metres in < 200 years each (i.e. > 5
millimetres/year), all reaching higher than today, long before industrial CO2.

27) If humans were to stop expanding fossil-fuel use and maintain current
levels, CO2 would soon stabilise at a new equilibrium value, nearer the optimum
for plants (Bullet 8). When fossil fuels eventually become too scarce to
produce economically, and we switch inevitably to nuclear energy, CO2 will
decrease.

[Alan]

Sorry, you can say it as often as you want.

But your first point doesn't even SUPPORT that global warming isn't
caused by CO2

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 16:54:10 -0700, Alan says...

1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) has no

geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) and
at most 1 geologist in the next report (due 2022; see my Technical Note 2019-
10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 170 years (since multiple reliable
thermometer measurements began, ~1850), yet Earth is 26 million (sic) times
older, 4.5 billion years. Geologists know that throughout this time Earth has

constantly warmed or cooled (never static). Thus "CLIMATE CHANGE" is nothing

new; it is perfectly usual. During the last 11,650 years, our current

"Holocene" interglacial epoch, CLIMATE CHANGE has repeatedly been fast enough

to cause collapse of civilisations (Bullet 20).

> Sorry

We know you are.

> , you can say it as often as you want.

Yes, I can, and I will, because it's the truth, that you STILL haven't refuted.
You're a chicken shit coward. All you have is "nuh uh".

You have ZERO evidence of refutation. Your "word" doesn't count for shit, Cunt.

"No" source... no credibility.
No source, so your quote is fake.
Evidence?
Let's see the source...
Source for those alleged "quotes"?
You have literally no evidence of any of that.
I looked.
https://i.imgur.com/UthyJOn.mp4
Still not a shred of evidence for this.
I dare you to show the source.
...but you have no independent evidence to support that claim.
Proof of that?
Even evidence of that?
Claims aren't evidence.
Nope. Claims are NEVER evidence.
Look it up.
Claims, accusations... ...call them what you want.
They are never evidence.
Me claiming you murdered Epstein would be evidence you murdered Epstein
according to your position.
Got a source for that?
No authoritative source...
Who and what's your source for that 100% stated fact?

Back to the Bozo Bin you go. I told you, and yes, you might not care... you
don't refute, you get ignored or binned.

> But your first point doesn't even SUPPORT that global warming isn't
> caused by CO2

Maybe, that's because the first point is about CLIMATE CHANGE, you moronic
Cuntnadian.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

See? When the stupid can't refute anything, they change the rules. Show us...
oh PLEASE, show us where it says "global warming" in "point #1".

Warming and climate change are two WHOLLY different animals, witnessed, by you
charlatans changing it from "global warming" to "climate change", because,
surprise surprise, the climate changes often and you disingenuous cunts used
that to fool the -85IQ'd dolts in your cult, and the temps haven't gone up
enough to warrant ANY kind of "crisis" OR "emergency".

They've been basically flat since 1998. NASA had the temp at 0.85°C for YEARS.
Temperature and climate are NEVER linear.

===============================================================================

White Liberals More Likely To Have A Mental Health Condition

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/white-liberals-more-likely-
have-mental-health-cond/

Apr 22, 2021 - Sixty-two percent of Whites who classify themselves as "very
liberal" or "liberal" have been told by a doctor they have a mental health
condition, as compared to 26% of conservatives and...

=====

White Liberals More Likely to Have Mental Health Problems... - Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/white-liberals-mental-health-
study/2021/04/20/id/1018293/

The Pew Study, Which The Washington Free Beacon notes was published last year
but only gained attention in a recent article, showed that white liberals of
all ages were more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health condition than
moderates or conservatives, with the disparity particularly pronounced among
those aged 18-29, according to evie...

=====

Study: Young White Liberals More Likely to Have Mental Health Problems

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/22/study-young-white-liberals-
more-likely-to-have-mental-health-problems/

Apr 22, 2021 - When sex and age were factors, 56.3 percent of white women
between the ages of 18 and 29 and who labeled themselves as "liberal," said
they had been given a mental health diagnosis, compared to 27.3 percent of
conservatives in the same categories and 28.4 percent of moderates:

=====

62% of "liberal" or very "liberal" whites have a mental health condition

https://www.independentsentinel.com/62-of-liberal-or-very-liberal-whites-have-
a-mental-health-condition/

According to a Pew Research Center survey, 62% percent of Whites who classify
themselves as "very liberal" or "liberal" has been told by a doctor they have a
mental health condition. Only 26% of conservatives and 20% of moderates have
been told they have such a condition, the study found.

=====

Pew Study: White Liberals Disproportionately Suffer From Mental Illness...

https://wibc.com/108211/pew-study-white-liberals-disproportionately-suffer-
from-mental-illness/

White women, ages 18-29, who identified as liberal were given a mental health
diagnosis from medical professionals at a rate of 56.3%, as compared to 28.4%
in moderates and 27.3% in conservatives. Zach Goldberg, a Ph.D. candidate in
political science, consolidated the study's info in a set of visuals and posted
them to a thread on Twitter.

SCIENCE: White Libs More Likely To Have Mental Health Problems

https://freebeacon.com/politics/white-libs-mental-health/

Within this demographic, 34 percent of liberals reported having mental health
problems, compared with 22 percent of moderates and 16 percent of
conservatives. Zach Goldberg, the doctoral...

=====

White Liberals Twice as Likely to be Diagnosed with Psychological Problems

https://www.hennessysview.com/p/psychologic-disorders-white-liberals

Nearly 1 in 2 (45.9%) of white liberals have been diagnosed with mental health
disorders. White liberals of all ages are more than twice as likely as
conservatives of any age to suffer from mental health disorders. White liberals
are almost twice as likely as non-white liberals to be diagnosed with mental
health problems.

=====

6 Reasons Why Liberalism IS A Mental Disorder (LOL) - The Political Insider

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/6-reasons-why-liberalism-can-be-considered-a-
mental-disorder/

In 2005, Michael Savage famously wrote a book titled, Liberalism is a Mental
Disorder, the subject of which is self-explanatory. Additionally, Dr. Lyle
Rossiter, a board-certified clinical psychologist, wrote a book in which he
diagnosed the ideology of the left as a tangible mental illness.

=====

Personality Traits, Mental Illness, and Ideology

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-
else/202103/personality-traits-mental-illness-and-ideology

specifically, surveys on the " big five " traits of extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience have
found that people identifying as politically...

=====

Study claims over 50% of liberal women under 30 have mental health...

https://theliberal.ie/study-claims-over-50-of-liberal-women-under-30-have-
mental-health-issues-men-and-women-with-liberal-views-more-likely-to-be-
mentally-unwell/

Study claims over 50% of liberal women under 30 have mental health issues, men
and women with liberal views more likely to be mentally unwell April 24, 2021 -
12:01 Gerard Clarke Irish News

[Alan]

On 2023-06-13 19:09, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 16:54:10 -0700, Alan says...
>
> 1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) has no
> geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) and
> at most 1 geologist in the next report (due 2022; see my Technical Note 2019-
> 10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 170 years (since multiple reliable
> thermometer measurements began, ~1850), yet Earth is 26 million (sic) times
> older, 4.5 billion years. Geologists know that throughout this time Earth has
> constantly warmed or cooled (never static). Thus "CLIMATE CHANGE" is nothing
> new; it is perfectly usual. During the last 11,650 years, our current
> "Holocene" interglacial epoch, CLIMATE CHANGE has repeatedly been fast enough
> to cause collapse of civilisations (Bullet 20).
>
>> Sorry
>
> We know you are.
>
>> , you can say it as often as you want.
>
> Yes, I can, and I will, because it's the truth, that you STILL haven't refuted.
> You're a chicken shit coward. All you have is "nuh uh".
>
> You have ZERO evidence of refutation. Your "word" doesn't count for shit, Cunt.

There are no words in there that taken at their face value "prove"
anything about what is causing current global warming.

Period.

That's just the fact.

[AlleyCat]

They pick out ONE paragraph of 295 and ONE "bullet point" out of 33.

Whatsa matta, pussy... to skeered to address the whole article, or is reading
past one paragraph too much for your tiny little liberal brain?

=====

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 19:58:21 -0700, Alan says...

1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) has no
geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) and
at most 1 geologist in the next report (due 2022; see my Technical Note 2019-
10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 170 years (since multiple reliable
thermometer measurements began, ~1850), yet Earth is 26 million (sic) times
older, 4.5 billion years. Geologists know that throughout this time Earth has
constantly warmed or cooled (never static). Thus "CLIMATE CHANGE" is nothing
new; it is perfectly usual. During the last 11,650 years, our current
"Holocene" interglacial epoch, CLIMATE CHANGE has repeatedly been fast enough
to cause collapse of civilisations (Bullet 20).

That ONE paragraph doesn't prove anything, but then, it wasn't meant to, so
what pussy liberal did was address that one paragraph ONLY, because he knew the
rest of the article might.

Refute the other 294 paragraphs, THEN tell us none of it makes more sense than
0.04% of the atmosphere trapping ALLLLL this heat.

I won't argue that CO² does what you say it does, but it can NOT do what you
say it does, at the magnitude you THINK it does.

This represents the atmosphere:

https://i.imgur.com/pNgFYap.png

Find the CO² molecules. THAT'S what you're saying creates warmth and/or
"traps" IR.

> There are no words in there

What's all so hilarious about this pansy-ass pussy, telling us that this
article doesn't "prove" anything, is HE doesn't prove it wrong, nor does he
offer proof of what he says is "warming" Earth, which is currently NOT warming.

=====

Try this, and prove that what's being proved is incorrect. You pussies... you
all think that you can refute something by simply saying "nuh uh", like a 4
year old?

Try again, wittle Allie.

https://i.imgur.com/sJcC89l.mp4

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyY1IsNXsAMwN-H?format=jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyY2TulWAAALZAe?format=jpg&name=large

33 Bullet Points Proving "Global Warming" Is Caused By The Sun, Not CO2 - By
Geologist, Dr Roger Higgs - Part 1

June 13, 2023 Cap Allon

Dr Roger Higgs (DPhil geology, Oxford, 1982-86)
Geoclastica Ltd and ResearchGate (click here for links to sources)

Abbreviations:
'AD" = anno Domini
'BC" = years "before Christ'
'BP" = years "before present', from radiocarbon dating. 0 is 1950AD by
convention
~ = about/approximately

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 19:58:21 -0700, Alan says...

>

> That's just the fact.

Funny, how you pansy-ass pussy liberals say something like that, when YOU'VE
brought up ZERO "facts" to refute what I posted. Nor, do you proffer anything
to prove your contrary point. In fact, there IS no point... you just say "nuh
uh" and that's it.

Sad little stupid liberals.

Have another go, pussy. Let's see YOUR facts, not coincidences or simple
observations. PROVE your hypotheses.

Whether a whole 0.04% of the atmosphere...

https://i.imgur.com/pNgFYap.png

... can "trap" IR, is irrelevant... it's the "cycles" of the Sun which is
driving warming.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1665555956774629377/pu/vid/960x540/lOAODah
Q4R9gnbdo.mp4?tag=12

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1666612098749669380/pu/vid/1280x720/aJxV2C
84G6djXtXG.mp4?tag=12

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyY2TulWAAALZAe?format=jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyY1IsNXsAMwN-H?format=jpg&name=large

https://i.imgur.com/gGZgyi4.mp4

Dr Roger Higgs (DPhil geology, Oxford, 1982-86)
Geoclastica Ltd and ResearchGate (click here for links to sources)

Abbreviations:
'AD" = anno Domini
'BC" = years "before Christ'
'BP" = years "before present', from radiocarbon dating. 0 is 1950AD by
convention
~ = about/approximately

1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no

geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) and
at most 1 geologist in the next report (due 2022; see my Technical Note 2019-
10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 170 years (since multiple reliable
thermometer measurements began, ~1850), yet Earth is 26 million (sic) times
older, 4.5 billion years. Geologists know that throughout this time Earth has

constantly warmed or cooled (never static). Thus "climate change" is nothing

new; it is perfectly usual. During the last 11,650 years, our current

"Holocene" interglacial epoch, climate change has repeatedly been fast enough

to cause collapse of civilisations (Bullet 20).

[Unum]

"Global Warming" Is Caused By The Sun, Not CO2", not a single word about the
sun anywhere, hilarious! And ratboy just keeps on running.

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 22:41:00 -0500, Unum says...

> "Global Warming" Is Caused By The Sun, Not CO2", not a single word about the
> sun anywhere, hilarious! And ratboy just keeps on running.

And fagboy just keeps onnnn sucking shit.


Truncated for brevity. All caps for the galactically stupid, like Alan and
Unum.

If you want the whole quote, READ, you fucking idiot.

https://groups.google.com/search?q=messageid:MPG.3ef3f60a88a50c1798a645
@news.eternal-september.org&inOrg=false

Stupid as shit.

... can "trap" IR, is irrelevant... it's the "cycles" of the SUN which is

5C) Despite CO2's greenhouse-warming potential, evidently the SUN (not CO2)

temperature (Bullet 21). These three IPCC failings, "SUN denial', ocean-lag

(end of SUNspot-defined "Maunder Minimum') to 1991 (peak of SMO SUN's modern

"Grand Maximum" [GM; 1937-2004]; NB SUNspot peak was earlier, 1958). A good

(Bullet 24). Thus I propose that the SUN drove Modern Warming (via the

Applying a temperature lag of ~100-150 years (Bullet 21) aligns: (i) the SUN's

allows more of the SUN's warmth to heat the ocean and hence the atmosphere

total magnetic flux leaving the SUN has risen by a factor of 1.4" and from 1901

cooling mimicked the SUN's 1,000-year sawtooth decline into the Little Ice Age

Bullet 12) disqualifies the SUN as the cause of warming. This disingenuously

well aware, and which brings the SUN's past "ups-and-downs" ('sawteeth') into

need to focus urgently on the imminent metre-scale SUN-driven sea level rise.

25) Although the SUN is now declining since its 1991 magnetic peak (Bullet 12),

=====

June: Soooooo Hot!

Record Cold Europe

Greenland SMB Climbing

Mt Washington's Snowiest June Ever

California's Summer Snow At 13 Feet

[Alan]

On 2023-06-14 14:57, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> They pick out ONE paragraph of 295 and ONE "bullet point" out of 33.
>
> Whatsa matta, pussy... to skeered to address the whole article, or is reading
> past one paragraph too much for your tiny little liberal brain?
>
> =====
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 19:58:21 -0700, Alan says...
>
> 1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) has no
> geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) and
> at most 1 geologist in the next report (due 2022; see my Technical Note 2019-
> 10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 170 years (since multiple reliable
> thermometer measurements began, ~1850), yet Earth is 26 million (sic) times
> older, 4.5 billion years. Geologists know that throughout this time Earth has
> constantly warmed or cooled (never static). Thus "CLIMATE CHANGE" is nothing
> new; it is perfectly usual. During the last 11,650 years, our current
> "Holocene" interglacial epoch, CLIMATE CHANGE has repeatedly been fast enough
> to cause collapse of civilisations (Bullet 20).

Actually you said all these points "PROVE" something...

>
> That ONE paragraph doesn't prove anything, but then, it wasn't meant to, so
> what pussy liberal did was address that one paragraph ONLY, because he knew the
> rest of the article might.
>
> Refute the other 294 paragraphs, THEN tell us none of it makes more sense than
> 0.04% of the atmosphere trapping ALLLLL this heat.
>

Wow. You think 34 paragraphs is the same as 294.

You brain is more far gone than I ever thought.

[Unum]

Just a garden variety troll desperately trying to get attention
on the internet.

[AlleyCat]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:15:58 -0500, Unum says...

> > You brain is more far gone than I ever thought.
>
> Just a garden variety troll desperately trying to get attention
> on the internet.
>

Refute it, or keep your cock-holster of a mouth shut, pussy.

How about that "no mention of the Sun" bullshit YOU spewed, gay troll?

Gayboy Keeps on Fucking Boyfriend's Ass Instead of Reading

=====

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 22:41:00 -0500, Unum says...

> "Global Warming" Is Caused By The Sun, Not CO2"

"NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT THE SUN ANYWHERE"

Reallllly?

Truncated for brevity. All caps for the galactically stupid, like

Message-ID: <MPG.3ef44c348...@news.eternal-september.org>