Climate: 22 Inconvenient Truths
1. The Mean Annual Global Temperature (MAGT) has been stable since 1997, despite a continued
increase of CO2 in the air: therefore how can anyone support a report which claims that an increase in
carbon gas concentration causes an increase in temperature?
2. Human CO2 emissions since 1997 represent 40% of all human-induced CO2 discharged to the
atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. However, as noted above, the temperature has stabilized
since 1997. Therefore, how can anyone support any report that alleges a cause-effect relationship
between anthropogenic created CO2 emissions and MAGT?
Note 1. Since 1880 the only time there was a sympathetic relationship between MAGT and CO2 was from 1978 to
1997. From 1910 to 1940 the MAGT continued at the same rate as between 1978 and 1997 when airborne
emissions were insignificant. From 1950 to 1978 when CO2 emissions increased dramatically the MAGT actually
decreased. An analysis of Vostok ice samples shows that it is actually an increase in temperature which causes an
increase in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around. That is the process even now, even for small
temperature variations, given that CO2
3. ...as well as anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is, on the average, only about 5% (isotopic
analysis - delta 13C), rather than 25-30% for the IPCC…
4. And the average life span of CO2 in the atmosphere is 5 years.
5. Variations of the MAGT are, in large measure, sinusoidal with a 60-year period corresponding to
movements of the sun relative to the center of gravity of the solar system. We are at the peak of the
sine curve therefore the next few years should likely be colder as it was after 1950.
6. Absorption by CO2 becomes saturated. If an infra-red source with a wide spectrum (sample heated
to 1000 °C, for example) is measured with a spectrometer the remainder after a distance equivalent
to a few tens of meters in the atmosphere--- CO2 bands (4, 3 and 15 microns) can be seen to have
been completely absorbed and replaced by the emitting spectrum of CO2 which radiates at the
temperature of gas. Therefore the atmosphere just a few 10s of meters above the Earth surface is no
longer affected
The addition of CO2 changes practically nothing if only the optical thickness increases.
7. In past geological time CO2 was 25% more abundant than it is now, yet there was no effect on
temperature. Why do the insignificant, present-day emissions of CO2 pose a cataclysmic threat, when
the laws of nature are constant in time and space?
8. Ocean levels rise about 1.3 mm/year according to tidal gauge measurements (after being corrected
for rock uplift or subsidence, now measured precisely by GPS); no increase was measured in the past
few years; measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the end of the 19th century are,
prior to GPS correction, a bit less than 1.3 mm/year
9. The hot spot predicted in the tropics, which should be THE unquestioned proof of the role of CO2
on the MAGT, was not detected, therefore it doesn't exist
10. The water vapor content of the air decreases with an increase in CO2, which is opposite to the
direct correlation predicted by the IPCC
11. The Antarctic ice sheet is larger
12. The total surface of both ice sheets is approximately constant, even though the surface area of
one ice sheet decreases while the area of the other increases.
13. Measurements made by 3600 ARGO oceanic probes show, since they began operating in 2003 a
very slight cooling of the oceans between the surface and a depth of from 700 to 1000 m (at best
there was no temperature increase)
14. The infrared flux that leaves the upper atmosphere is greater than predicted by models: there is
no effect of cover, i.e. no greenhouse effect.
15. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply to gasses, which are neither black bodies, nor gray
bodies, but the IPCC applies it to gas...anyway
16. Traces of gas absorb surface radiation and radiate at a temperature which, higher in the
atmosphere, is less than the temperature at the earth's surface. There is no way that they can re-heat
the earth's surface: check the 2nd law of thermodynamics which declares that re-heating of a warm
body by one that is colder is impossible.
17. It is always the temperature which controls CO2 changes, never the other way around.
18. Project CLOUD of CERN tests the Svensmark-Shaviv Theory (which addresses the role of cosmic
rays, changes in which are controlled by solar activity, on cloud formation) and the initial results,
which were quite positive, were published in Nature.
19. Modeling cannot represent, realistically, the cryosphere or cloud cover, changes in which have a
significant effect on the MAGT. Project Earthshine, which measures changes in the Earth's reflectance as seen
from the Moon, which is only illuminated by our planet, shows that changes in the reflectance are essentially the
result of cloud cover. It decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased until 2004, which follows rather well
changes in the MAGT.
20. Projections resulting from numerical modeling yield different results, with more measurements
increasing those differences. A numerical model is not a scientific proof and, when refuted by
observations, is shown to be wrong and must either be thrown away or, at best, re-examined in
detail.
We are still waiting for those IPCC-created numerical models, developed at the taxpayers' expense, to
be tossed into the waste basket or revised.
21. No matter what, it is impossible for numerical models to predict climatic evolution, because it is a
coupled, non-linear chaotic system as IPCC specified in its 2001 report, and as demonstrated by past
and present climatic instability. Why would that have changed since 2001? There is surely no scientific
explanation.
22. Finally the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent one: the summary (SPM) is
intended solely for policy makers, politicians, and the media and was prepared under the tight control
of representatives of countries under the supervision of the ONG. That group is comprised of a
minority of scientists that are obsessed with environmental ideology and a majority of ONG and
nations.