What about the Climate Crisis? Or is Climate Change mild and benign?

CO2 is called a “greenhouse” gas” because of its interaction with infrared radiation. The IPCC and most critics agree that the relation between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic. A doubling of CO2 causes only a linear increase in “back-radiation”. This is called the “climate sensitivity”. Despite claims to the contrary, the value of the climate sensitivity is unknown. Alarmists claim 3 or more °C per doubling, various critics claim different lower values. This is due to the unclear nature of various feedback mechanisms.

For the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 increased constantly at 2 ppm per year. It would thus take 200 years until the next doubling!

Correlation of CO2 and Temperature

The CO2 concentration was already more then ten times as high as it is today. On geological timescales no correlation between CO2 and Temperature can be found.

In the time-frame of hundreds of thousands of years a good correlation can be observed. CO2 follows the Temperature by approximately 800 years.

Since the industrialization there is a small upwards trend that could correspond to a “Sensitivity” between 1° and 2°. In the same graph one can see that, even when assuming that the overall trend would be only due to CO2, there are periods of natural variability: temperature rise without much CO2 increase from 1910 to 40, temperature drop from the 40s to 70s with moderate CO2 increase.

The rate of change of CO2 between 12 Month follows the change in Temperature. But CO2 can’t be cause and effect of a temperature increase within the same time-frame, otherwise a runaway feedback would had already happened a long time ago. Thus it is even questionable that the rise in temperature since the “little ice age” is even caused by CO2. A negative feedback mechanism, like cloud cover or expansion would have negated much of its effect.

Edit Post

Consequences of more CO2

The main fear from climate change or global warming comes from weather extremes and regions becoming uninhabitable. However this is unwarranted. No significant increase in weather extremes in the last 150 years is evident. There is no increase in extreme drought.

There is no increase in the frequency of hurricanes.

There is no increase in the strength of hurricanes.

The number of tornadoes in the US has not increased.

The sea level rise is constant and independent of CO2.

The climate related death toll decreased significantly over the last decades.

Food production increased faster than population. The CO2 increase helped in this regard with a fertilizing effect.

Higher temperature has always been advantageous for humans and for life in general. Considering the regions that are already have a very hot climate, potential problems caused by a small temperature increase are dwafed by other environmental factors, like a population explosion.

As there is no problem, there is also no meaningful economic policy to counter a problem. Alarmists do not seem to know what they actually want – other than everyone else joining their belief system. The promisis made at the Paris Climate Accord, even calculated with the unreasonable high values of the IPCC, would only cause a temperature reduction of 0.05 degrees by 2100, but would cost hundredts of billions of Dollars. Wind and Solar are not good enough to compensate for fossil fuels. Only 4th gen nuclear technology could replace them in the long run.

The cause of the climate hysteria

On the question of “why”: The obvious right/left divide between climate alarmists and skeptics as well as the mass delusion of scientists and the general public is mysterious. An organic emergence out of pseudo-religious behavioral patterns, corruption and confirmation bias seems to be the most plausible explanation. Before crying “conspiracy theory one may consider, that there are historical precedents of wildly held false believes (witches, blood letting, Galileo, Semmelweise, marsian canals, Lyssenkoism, Creationism, Religions) as well as secret government projects (Manhattan, Ajax, Paperclip, Condor, Mockingbird, Northwoods, Gladio, Cyclone, MKUltra, NSA, etc.)

For any interested objective observer, who has bothered to read the climate-gate emails, it should be clear that mainstream climate science not only full with failed predictions but also very corrupt. The “hockey stick” graph that attempted to erase the medieval warm period from history has become the figurehead of the climate fraud.

Modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, or hockey-stick-shaped, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

The propagandists like to turn this around, but it is them who have preconceived conclusions, ignoring contradictory evidence and are unable or unwilling to change their mind – not the critics.
The propagandists try to insult their critics with phrases like “conspiracy theorist” and “denier”, at the same time they often bring up, usually without evidence, the “big-oil-funds-climate-denial” conspiracy theory.
With few exceptions the professional climate scientists refuse public debate with their critical colleagues.

In internet forums the propagandists use mendacious debate strategies that are primarily based on emotional mechanisms. Examples from this threat: Pretending to have been a skeptic before but having changed side; insulting the opponents as much as possible; denying any wrongdoing or mistakes of their side (“climategate-dinndo-nothing”); pretending to win the argument by having the last word (although “skeptical-science” seems to have an answer to every comment, that does not mean that the answer is correct or compelling). All this makes it look like that, even if climate change would be a real problem, it is presented as if it would be a lie.

Skeptical Climate Science from Germany:

Climate News in German:

Zusammenfassung der Position der “Klimaskeptiker”:

All about sea level rise

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Publishes large and comprehensive reports that challenge those by the “IPCC”:

The world’s most viewed blog on climate science, “Watts Up With That”, by Anthony Watts:

A very good collection of 100’s of skeptic papers:

Studies on the medieval warm period:

A comprehensive and neutral collection of climate data:

David MacKay, “Reality check on renewables” :

R. Lindzen, No alarmism is justified:  

Patrick Moore, “Greenpeace co-founder: CO2 is wholly beneficial” :

Roy Spencer, Alarmist Gavin Schmidt is scared of a debate:

Will Happer, Technical details on how CO2 IR absorption works:  

Nir Shaviv, How the sun and cosmic rays influence climate 1:

Henrik Svensmark, How the sun and cosmic rays influence climate 2:

Murry Salby, a different view of the CO2 cycle, even controversial among skeptics, but astonishing if correct: