The Problems with Accepted Climate Change

Researchers drilling boreholes in 2017 under the Antarctic, discovered under the ice in a sediment core near Pine Island Glacier, (75°10′S 100°0′W) near the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica fossil roots, pollen, spores and amber from a 90 million year old rainforest using a CT scan (computed tomography). The fossils would come from a dense swampy forest normally found in temperate areas averaging 12-19°C, mean temperature maybe 16°C, models suggesting that to produce that sort of temperature, rather than the accepted 1,000ppm for CO2, it would require 1,200-1,700ppm. 3-4 times the current levels and likely a rainfall equivalent to Wales in the UK.

Normally this has a temperature range of between -36°C to 1°C, averaging out at around -18°C over the year. This means that the average temperature would have been 32°C higher than it is currently.

This is where the problem lies. What level of temperature would the rest of the world be over a long period?

The current accepted models suggest that the polar regions heat up at about twice the rate of the average global temperature with climate change.

There are a number of possibilities. It could be a random pocket, but unlikely. The earth could have been tilted differently, possible and worrying. Or the earth was a lot hotter, an average not by 1 or 2 degrees C that we are panicking over, but possibly by something like +16 degrees C.

Animal life was thriving at the time, not wiped out or extinct, but this is what the earth may be able to throw at us.

The other main problem is the mechanism. It’s said to be anthropomorphic CO2 that’s causing all the problems, but methane was completely missed out from all calculations and said to be accurate models or counted as mainly irrelevant up until recently. Now it’s thought that it could be up to 30% of the problem or more.

That’s not the problem, but it is worrying as far as any accuracy and prediction goes. What is worrying is that CO2 was constantly increasing and between 1940 and 1960 the temperature actually started to fall, not in line and out of sync with the increase.

There is another problem which is the rise and fall in the year. It’s the same amount and the rise of both follow and almost straight line.

From my experience with statistics, this does not seem to follow any type of biological influence, but suggests a mechanical form such as chemistry or physics. Biological influence is nearly in every case uneven, but this is almost a straight line, and set fluctuations, not in line with the ebbs and flows of life. Populations and their effects bloom and die, but not in this fashion, and nearly always in a more exponential way.

So, I have my doubts that the current narrative is correct. But, policies and plans are being made and implemented with this being correct and exact. And flaws are starting to be discovered.

Models are based on starting conditions and assumptions, known past conditions, effects that can produce formulae, and results from that combination, but if any is wrong then the predictions and assumptions that can be made from that can be wildly inaccurate to the point of nonsense. There were no temperature records really collected on earth before around 1850, and even then, mainly in the UK and a few wildly dispersed places with doubtful instrumentation. World records didn’t really begin until about 1940, and satellites data, modelled from space around 1970. The latest batch of satellites were launched around 2000 and used different systems and models, so older dated had to be converted and ‘normalised’ to match the new data. In the past, data before 1970 was collected maybe once a day, then a few times a day, today live collection and recorded many times a minute, maybe 10,000 times as many, so anomalies missed because there was only 1 record compared to 10,000 collected over the same period could have missed 9,999 of potential higher or lower ones, especially with more primitive instruments.

If you now model in this extra data and don’t include the same for older data you might find new data is misrepresenting what would have been normal in the past as extremes in the present.