Comparison of CO2 levels with the Pliocene

Here is a nice post from linkedin

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! With absolute certainty! With 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 that it was falling![3]. The ocean level is not rising, not yet anyway. And why are we measuring the ocean level? The ocean bottom and the land surface are in movement. Why are we not comparing the difference between the average ocean depth and the average land height? This is called selective data, instead of using all the data, you pick and chose to make your point! Is this really science?

• 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 surface of the Earth. And what is the surface of the Earth? Coastline level? Just because it suits us? Where is the comparison of the difference between the average ocean depth and average 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] Why has the IPCC ignored this in their calculations?

• Solar activity - Solar activity goes in cycles. And the activity has been higher in the last 3 decades which affects the climate. The graph shows that solar activity has been much higher recently![5] Another report shows that the activity has been rising in the past century. It even acknowledges that this affects the climate, but only for the short term. [6] Why have they not accounted for these effects in the modelling?

• 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. [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 warming very slightly? [8]

• It was natural then and man-made now - Since the CO2 level was high in the Pliocene, and high levels of CO2 are caused by humans, humans must have existed then. What? we did not! If the CO2 level was not man-made in the Pliocene, then why is the CO2 level man-made NOW!

• Modelling - Has the Covid models not shown us that these modellers do not know how to model anything? Yet we are all believing them! Why have all natural effects of change been ignored? Why are only selected data points put in to the model? Is it any wonder that the modellers get the result that they concocted to get? In Computer terminology this is called GIGO. It means that 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?