Climate Change Is there anything to worry about? Spoiler alert - No

Recent Headlines More than 150,000 people could die as a result of climate change each year in Europe by the end of the century, shocking new research has found. The number of deaths caused by extreme weather events will increase 50-fold and two in three people on the continent will be affected by disasters, the study – that serves as a stark warning of the deadly impact of global warming – found. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/deaths-year-climate-change-global-warming-extreme-weather-events-2100-150000-a7877461.html The Earth just reached a CO2 level not seen in 3 million years

The climate change hypothesis Co2 increase drives extreme weather Co2 increase causes increased global temperature Co2 increase will cause sea levels to rise If any part of a hypothesis fails the hypothesis must be rejected Its how science works

co2 – Villain or Hero? co2 is a non toxic invisible gas Global co2 levels have been as low as 280ppm and as high as 6000ppm Each inward breath contains 400ppm co2 Each outward breath contains 40000ppm co2 (no one died from the breath given during CPR) Plants evolved during the Devonian when co2 was 4000ppm, at 280ppm plants are effectively starving Thought: What is the optimum co2 level

Melting glaciers and the polar ice caps We are In a geological time period called the Holocene. This is an interglacial, which means a time in between ice ages Glaciation events are cyclic and are caused by “wobbles” in earths orbit and are called the Milankovitch cycles Arguably most “strange” activities like temperature and sealevel are completely related to these cycles

Recent ups and downs

Which came first?

Hypothesis Fail Number 1 Co2 lags temperature increases in every instance for the past 400,000 years Therefore co2 cannot be shown to increase global temperature and is likely caused from a warming ocean and similar events

Hypothesis Fail Number 2 There is no link between temperature and co2 concentration in the atmosphere Co2 has been 7000ppm in the Cambrian where average temperature was 25oC Co2 HAS BEEN HIGHER WHEN TEMPERATURE IS HIGH AND LOW Co2 has been lower when temperature is high and low In all instances where CO2 has been higher there has been no runaway greenhouse effect. Why is today different?

Sealevel Rise – Time to sell beachfront?

Hypothesis Fail number 3 Sealevel has been rising for the past 7000+ years as we leave a glaciation event and warm into the latest interglacial Sealevel rise has in the main been linear across the globe, some area are sinking some are rising quickly but these can locally be explained without melting ice sheets or catastrophic temperature increases The likely rise in sea level over the next 100 years is less than 30cm. We ought to be able to react to this level of “destruction”

Extreme weather?

Cyclones

Hypothesis fail number 4 No increase in any extreme event shown over the 20th or 21st centuries NO increase in heatwaves, cold waves, storm frequency or intensity No increase in wildfires, droughts, floods Every extreme event when compared year on year is within normal rates and intensity

Are temperatures actually increasing Actually, they probably are But no evidence that man made co2 is the main driving force There is evidence that the sun plays a significant role The total global temperature increase is 0.8oC since 1860 Thought: What is the optimum global average temperature? So why do the graphs show a catastrophic future?

Adjustments to raw data

Evidence of data tampering

Data adjustments - Even in NZ

Hypothesis fail number 5 After accounting for adustments, century length temperature increase is likely to be at best only half of what is reported with some evidence that all recent warming is due only to adjustment and not actual figures This was done to remove the pause and exaggerate the temperature increases in the past decade It was also done to reduce the impact of the 1930s heatwave on the graphs Ie the warmest decade on record (the actual warmest decade was the 1930s)

The models

Hypothesis Fail number 6 Climate models are worse than useless No predictive capability whatsoever… Predictive ability is the main reason hypotheses “upgrade” to scientific theories eg: Evolutionary Theory Theory of Gravity Germ Theory Theory of relativity And why there is unlikely to be a theory of CO2 driven climate change They will continue to fail because they deliberately omit two key variables: Water Vapour Solar activity

Final thoughts There is no evidence to suggest we even need to plan for climate change … beyond our normal adaption to changes in local climate It is evident that an increase in Co2 is a good thing Temperature increase of 2 degrees over the next 100 years is nothing to be concerned by. Evidence suggests cold weather kills more humans than warm. There is a general decrease in both occurrence and severity of all extreme weather across the globe for the past 20 years A hypothesis that fails its test for the null hypothesis must be discarded. It is clear that the Climate change hypothesis is flawed at best and wrong (most likely) at worst Why have we spent between 1 and 2 trillion dollars? Yes trillion. One estimate puts the total spend over next 50 years to be in the order of 100 trillion dollars What is the optimum global average temperature? How much co2 is good? (Hint: ask a plant) Why have the sun and water vapour been ignored in the models? STOP worrying and spend climate change research money on more important issues such as energy generation to cover the upcoming fleet of electric vehicles

Questions Hopefully there is time