Faulty Comparison of CO2 levels with the Pliocene Era
This graph depicts the upward trajectory of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as
measured at the Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory by NOAA and the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The annual fluctuation is known as the
Keeling Curve. Credit: NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory
Here is a post from linkedin by a brainwashed person
NOAA records new carbon dioxide peak - near 420 parts per million.
"The atmospheric burden of CO2 is now comparable to where it was during the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when CO2 was close to, or above 400 ppm. During that time, sea level was about 78 feet higher than today, the average temperature was 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in pre-industrial times, and studies indicate large forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra."
The destabilising impacts of climate change are likely to be far reaching, affecting many parts of the global economy in ways not fully understood right now. While it is easy to point fingers at major GHG contributors, it is up to the entire global community to work on solutions to the rising concentration of atmospheric CO2.[1]
Assumptions and facts
- The CO2 level measurement - We could not measure the CO2 levels very precisely in the 1900s. Yet we can precisely say what the level was in the Pliocene. And that it was falling! All this with a ZERO MARGIN OF ERROR. [2]
- The Ocean Level assumption - Humans could barely measure the ocean level accurately in the 1900s. Yet we can confidently say what the ocean level was in the Pliocene! And again, with a zero margin of error. And they can tell that at precisely at that time, the ocean level was falling. [3] The ocean level is not rising YET. Maybe it will rise at some time. Up until recently, NASA's data showed that the ocean level was not rising. The IPCC got to them and the historical data has been adjusted to support this mad theory.
- The structure of the Earth - The Earth was different then. The bottom of the ocean was at a different distance from the core, as was the land surface of the Earth. And what is the surface of the Earth? Coastline level? Why? Why not the top of the Himalayan peak? Surely one should use the average height of the total land area!
- Distance of Earth from the Sun - The distance of Earth from the Sun is also a contributor. I haven't found the difference in orbits yet. But we know that Earth was closer to the Sun. The orbit increases each year, which is helping slow down the temperature rise.[4] But the IPCC has ignored this in their calculations? Have they heard of GIGO?
- Solar activity - Solar activity goes in cycles. And the activity has been higher in the last 3 decades which affects the climate. [5] Another source reports that the activity has been rising in the past century.[6]
- Volcanic activity - There was a reasonable amount of volcanic activity. Which is one of the factors affecting the climate. Even NASA admits that a Mantle Plume under the Antarctic may still be melting the Antarctic Ice. But miraculously this is not volcanic activity, because they also say that volcanic activity is not melting the polar ice.[7]
- Climatic Trend - The Climate was actually cooling in the Pliocene and the temperature was higher. So, how can we compare it with today when the temperature is cooler and is only marginally warming ? [8]
- Was the Change man-made then too? - The CO2 level was high in the Pliocene, and humans and their activity did not exist. Supposedly its rising again, dangerously. So, does this not prove that man did not cause the increase in CO2?
- Modelling - Has the Covid not shown us that these modellers and their models are rubbish? First, all natural effects of change have been ignored. Second, only selected data points are put in. Then amazingly the only result possible comes out. In Computer science this is called GIGO. If one feeds Garbage into a model then Garbage comes out of it.
Conclusion
This is the sort of faulty science that is behind all parts of the climate change fiasco. Things are deliberately left out and others are deliberately misinterpreted. If the perpetrators really thought that climate change was accelerating and was man-made, then why are they doctoring the science? Why are they fudging the evidence? Why run a witch hunt on non-believers? Why try to brainwash the young, gullible minds with weapons like Greta Thunderbird?
Why not let true science do the talking? If you felt that this was a little hard-nosed, there is a Softer version here.
- Above are my views based on my personal experience and my interactions with leading scientists and real-life observers of events.
- If you spot any errors in fact or deduction, please send me a note so that I can correct this piece.
- If you have an opposing viewpoint, let me know with facts or even reasoned arguments and I will update this essay.
- How do you tell the difference between a believer in science and a believer in religion.
- The Pliocene Epoch was 5-1.6 million years ago.
References (a tiny sample)
- Comparing CO2 levels with the Pliocene Era.
- CO2 levels were falling.
- Ocean level was falling.
- Earth is receeding, lowering the temperature.
- Higher solar activity in the last 30 years.
- Sun's activity increased in the past century
- Melting of Polar Ice because of Mantle Plume.
- Climate was actually cooling then.