July 26th, 2021
Join us - share and network, discover and learn
Rethinking Climate Change or NOT
Next Public WEBINAR - Discussing replies
Friday, July 30th 4PM
All former webinars are accessible
Send comments to Perry@PerryKinkaide.com
Last week the KEI Network's newsletter and follow-on webinar included reference to - and discussion of, David Siegel's article on rethinking climate change. Respondent's have taken the article to heart and have three questions for which we hope you might reply with an answer(s).
First an introduction then the 3 questions:
Rethinking Climate Change and Land-based Weather Hiccups
Looking for evidence - science-based, of climate change/ global warming? Something more than a report of what we are experiencing as weather hiccups? The following article by David Siegel is sobering and worthy of comment - minimizing the impact of man-made CO2 emissions and maximizing the roles of the sun and the oceans. https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/ninety-nine-percent-of-all-conversations-about-climate-are-wrong-fa56d3f4f828
1. The article shows that actual land surface temperatures in the 1930’s were very much hotter than NOAA or Berkeley Earth portray as evidence of global warming. The raw data shows land temperatures have been cooling since the 1930’s versus “Corrected data” showing the 1930’s being quite cool and temperatures steadily rising since then.
Question: What is the basis and rationale for the “Corrected” Land Temperature profile?
2. Quote from David Siegel: “Andy May, a retired petro-physicist and data scientist, has convinced me that 99.9% of the thermal energy coming from the sun (including the greenhouse effect) and stored by the Earth’s surface as heat goes into the oceans, not into the land or air”.
From this broad, sweeping statement of Andy May, David Siegel concludes that the sun is the driver (of climate change). The oceans are the medium through which the sun changes climate. He states: “Patterns in solar radiation over decades and centuries with various time lags drive oceans to change the climate. Nothing else matters”.
Question: What is the rationale for stating that 99.9% of the sun’s heat is stored in the oceans; 0.1% in the atmosphere; and (Net?) 0% in the land?
3. "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats Of Doom” by Dr. Patrick Moore (a founder of Greenpeace) — see pp 65-68
During the 1970’s through to the mid-1990’s, teams from several countries drilled deep ice cores in Antarctica and in Greenland. The results included an 800,000 year record of the climate and CO2 in Antarctica.
It was determined that a change in the the temperature in the atmosphere also means a change in the temperature of the world’s oceans causing them to absorb more CO2 when they cool and to emit more CO2 when they warm. In fact, a closer analysis of the data shows that the rise in temperature occurs an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2. (The reason there is a relatively long lag time is that when the atmosphere warms it can do so relatively rapidly, but the oceans contain 1,000 times as much heat as the atmosphere and it takes much longer for them to warm or cool).
Ice core data from 50,000 to 2,500 years ago clearly shows that CO2 follows temperature. (Note that Al Gore got it backwards in “Inconvenient Truth”). This cause and effect is opposite to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is driving global warming. So, if CO2 is not the main driver of climate change, it leads one to conclude it must be the sun (solar activity).
Question. What are we missing? If man-made CO2 is not the main driver, the world is poised to come up with very ill conceived and costly climate policies. What would be the benefit of such policies and public misinformation?
REPLIES RECEIVED - Please send us your reply to the questions above
David Siegel is not worth responding to … so, I’ll just link to someone who bothered to …
Tom Rand, Managing Partner, ArcTern Ventures