July 24, 2023

Let's Compare the 19th Century heat map data to that of the 21st Century

Okay now, the 19th Century was supposed to have been a time of much cooler temperatures, due to lower atmospheric co2 levels.  The 21st Century has repeatedly been reported to be a co2-fueled sauna of death.  Sometimes --- but only sometimes --- the temperatures were honestly reported by the general & generic journalists who market sensationalistic hype.  But, that which was very DISHONESTLY reported was the claim that never before had such a temperature or such an amount of rainfall or such a windspeed ever occurred.

The truth is that "it" has all been done before.  "It" refers to the "main weather event" being reported by the non-meteorologists who are not articulate in explaining "the science."  "It" is the climate activists' "star of the weather show," presented to the viewing public, to create fear and insecurity.  "It" is the "excuse" that the climate hysteria faction uses to claim the existence of a new era which now warrants them to takeover all governments and rule mankind through the U.N.  New York City then becomes the capitol of the world.  This is the mindset of the generation raised on TV, video games, and the cell phone.  The Great Outdoors is a concept entirely foreign to the vast majority of them.

This is a July 1896 newspaper edition, when atmospheric co2 was 126 ppm LOWER than it is today.  It looks like the 2022 and 2023 news.  This is one of many pieces of evidence which show that climate hasn't changed its pattern in the past 127 years.  Concerning any weather event reported in the past thirty years --- and even in the past 130 years ago --- "it" has all been done before.  Climate is a cyclical rollercoaster, and co2 will NOT cause the world to end at any time within the next 400 years.

Climate is properly defined as the "Prevailing Long-term Weather Trend."  Two-week heatwaves --- or three-week heatwaves --- that come in occasional clusters of time throughout a continent, do NOT define the climate.  There are the other 49-50 weeks in each year to consider, as well.  In 2023, there was record cold and record snow throughout Planet Earth.  Drought-ridden dams were refilled as if a fairy godmother visited the American West with a heavy duty wand.  Maine even had cryoseisms which were actually reported by media outlets as famous as the Washington Post.  However, this will NOT be reported by any Climate Hysteria Network any time soon.

BTW, cryoseisms are frostquakes which happen to occur when already-existing underground water freezes and expands, thereby causing tremors.  

No appreciable, crisis-stage sea level rise here.  This wide beach is a part of Eastern Florida where exists a lot of dry and sandy walking space.  Great for joggers in training.  No expanding waters here.
At this point, look at the Univ of Maine's Reanalyzer map for the JULY temperature average of the Year 2015.  This is the most recent year thus far made available to the public.  We can't review anything more recent, unless you want to use the ECMWF data.   

ECMWF stands for European Center for MEDIUM-RANGE Weather Forecasts.  It's data does not go beyond 1950; 73 years ago,  This subject involves a time span of 170 years.  So, the CIRES one will work.  It's based out of the Univ of Colorado and it stands for Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.

None the less, the rule is to NEVER switch data sets midway through a timeline analysis.  It results in the apples & oranges effect.  Such a thing will result in a false graph line or chart reading or table summary.  It's very dishonest to do such a thing.

Below is the reanalyzer map for July of 2015 and also 1845.  In 1845, the atmospheric co2 level was 284 parts per million (ppm).  In 2015, the co2 level was 401.1   This amounts to a 117 part per million difference between 1845 and 2015.

The Year 1845 was selected for people not natural at math.  It's easy to see that 2015 minus 1845 = a 170 year difference.  None the less, 1845 was the start of the Great Famine which later became the Irish Potato Famine.  Three years later would come Europe's greatest revolution thus far; even greater than the events of July 1789, and only to be exceeded in size and impact by the 1870 revolts.   Moreover, the Little Ice Age had recently ended, approximately in 1840 or so.  And of course, the Little Ice Age began with the arrival of the Wolf Solar Minimum.  This was in 1284 or so.  So, 1845 would be a fitting year to use in this example.

In addition, America had a drought between 1856 and 1865.  So, those years are slanted in terms of finding a suitable average year.  Thus, using 1865 isn't prudent, even though it is an exact 150 year difference from 2015.  And yes, the entire American Civil War was fought during a drought.

According to the Al Gore Theory of Climate, it should have been a whole lot hotter in 2015 than it was in 1845.  This is because there is 117 ppm more of co2 in the atmosphere today than there was in 1845.  Well then, let's look at the reanalysis maps and compare.  And remember, for the 19th Century temperature conclusion to be credible, proxy evidence --- even from third party sources --- is needed, to confirm the validity of the map.  Thermometer stations were a rare commodity in South America, Africa, and parts of Asia in the 19th Century and prior.  Proxy evidence is already explained at this Blue Marble Album.

Upon looking at both maps, your immediate response should be, "What's the difference?"  Actually, there is one moderate difference and a handful of slight differences.  Therefore, it's NOT the same one map being used twice.

As far as goes the one instance of a moderate difference, it was cooler in Northwestern Russia and in the Kara Sea area . . . in July of 2015.  Yes, that's correct.  The temperature in Northwestern Russia was higher in July of 1845 than it was in July of 2015 . . .  according to Maine's Reanalyzer technology.  Now, this applies to JULY only.

We shall now take a referee's time-out for those Climate Doom Fanatics who are undergoing convulsions.  At this point, their only rebuttal is to claim that the reanalyzer is a complete fraud.  When they recover, they can view the average annual temperature maps below.  Those maps are of the Years 1845 and 2015, of course.  

In this instance, Northwestern Russia and the Scandinavian nations were cooler (on the average) for the entire year of 1845 than they were in the entire year of 2015.  However, both maps look very much similar, concerning the remaining landmasses and water regions of Planet Earth.   Thus, there hasn't been that much of a change in the climate in the past 170 years, except for intervals of turbulence ... or "blocking systems."  The Climate Change campaign is merely a con game, to get large sums of taxpayer dollars and NGO donations into the hands of less-than-honest people.

This example shows you that the mainstream media has been lying to you, in claiming that Planet Earth has become a Climate Armageddon, with massively different temperatures between today and the 19th Century.  Thus, the media's Climate Hysteria is an insult to human intelligence.  It also shows why the television used to be called "the Boob Tube."  In the 1960s, a boob was an idiot ... a buffoon.  

All in all, climate and weather is far more involved than the simpleton version taught by Al Gore.  And "severe weather events" are based on one thing; TURBULENCE.  Turbulence comes and goes.  Thus, the climate is a cyclical roller coaster.

BTW, at the top lefthand corner of the maps is "2m."  This means the temperature at two meters above the ground.


Now for the true reason why 1845 and 2015 don't appear to be very different, in terms of temperature:

As far as goes Greenhouse Gases, they were mostly the same in 1845 as they are today.  This is because co2 doesn't come close to being the Number 1 Greenhouse Gas.  And methane is in a distant third place.  You see, the most abundant Greenhouse Gas today is WATER VAPOR.  It constitutes 90% of all greenhouse gases, by volume.  And of course, volume deals with taking-up-space.  Thus, the Number 1 Greenhouse Gas in the sky is, by far, WATER VAPOR.  There was as much water vapor in 1845 --- for the most part --- as there is today.

Water Vapor is the only Greenhouse Gas of Planet Earth that carries any weight --- that proverbially pulls rank --- that keeps Planet Earth from becoming a perpetual 0.0 degrees Fahrenheit ... (-17.78 degrees Celsius.)  CO2 is chump change, compared to Water Vapor, in the capture of infrared light.  Cirrus Clouds retain more infrared light than does co2, and the great irony is that cirrus clouds are all ice.  High floating ice does retain heat, for Planet Earth.

Your environmental mission for this era is NOT co2, being that co2 is your friend.  Your mission is that of freeing live beings from the ingestion, the absorption, and the inhalation of synthetic chemicals & irritants.  This includes the PFAS class, as well as the sensitizers, clastogens, carcinogens, etc.  Included in the mission is stopping the irresponsible handling of plastics.  

In this type of environmental challenge the order of the day is to reinvent filtration science.  Filtration, filtration, filtration.  An example is the catalytic converter.  Ironically, charcoal is a great filter.  Some of the greatest findings in life are counter-intuitive.

July 13, 2023

Michael Mann was never even nominated for a Nobel Prize. He's a con artist, and scientists looking for congressional funding keep silent about it.

Contrary to his public claim and the claim of Democracy Now, Michael Mann is NOT recognized by the Nobel Foundation as any type of Nobel laureate.  This was confirmed by the official Nobel Foundation Office, itself, in an audio recording.  Michael Mann was NEVER nominated for a Nobel Prize, in the first place.  Being that he was NEVER on the nomination list, he surely was NEVER on the laureate list.  Case Closed.  He's a con artist.  The only question that remains is if whether or not the personnel of Democracy Now were a bunch of dupes or contributory con artists.  They are very prejudiced and agenda-driven.  So, do the math.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *

Audio Proof that Michael Mann's Nobel Prize Claim is a fraudulent misrepresentation (aka lie) 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

That particular recording assures us that Michael Mann is NOT on the list of Nobel Prize sole-winners or co-winners, in any category.  So, you do NOT have to submit to him, no matter what he says or writes.  And you surely don't have to submit to the present-day media who happens to be filled with personnel not known for common sense, honesty, reason, diligence, ... or humility.  BTW, stubbornness is not diligence.

NEITHER has any group affiliated with Michael Mann won or co-won the Nobel prize in Physics ... or in Chemistry ... or in Physiology, aka medicine ... or in Literature ... or in the Economic Sciences.  

There is one and only one group which co-won the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, in 2007.  That was the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  

Take note that they did NOT win the Nobel Prize in Physics.  The Nobel Peace Prize is only one of the several yearly prizes awarded by the Nobel Foundation, and Michael Mann's name is NOT on any of those peace prize awards ... or any other Nobel award.

All in all, Mann is fraudulently passing himself off as the ultimate end-all scientist of his particular field of study which happens to be "surface temperatures."  

In addition, he's a notably dull and boring speaker.  If you have insomnia, simply go to a Michael Mann talk, and voila!  No more insomnia.  He makes the End of the World sound all so boring.  Therefore, the best thing to wear to a Michael Mann talk is pajamas.  Bring a pillow. 

The great self-negating feature to Michael Mann, decline hider extraordinaire, is something known as evidence.  Take notice:

https://i0.wp.com/electroverse.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/NYT-1961.gif?ssl=1
Above:  Introducing ... in printed legacy ... the Temperature Decline that Michael Mann was hiding, yet which was declared to fully exist, by an unanimous field of specialists ... as far back as 1961.

At this point, it's also important for you to realize that Al Gore NEVER co-won the Nobel Prize in Physics or in Chemistry or in Physiology or in Economic Sciences or in Literature.  Al Gore, at best, is a remedial science student who went on Conan O'Brien's talk show and confidently stated that the center of Planet Earth is millions of degrees.  Try 9,800F to 10,800F, instead.  If the core of Planet Earth were millions of degrees, vaporization & annihilation would have occurred long ago. 

BTW, do you remember reading-of or hearing Michael Mann's doomsday predictions about Australia soon becoming a "climate refugee" nation?  Well, 2022 was a year of record high crops in East Australia.  Also in 2022 was the announcement that  two of the three major sectors of the Great Barrier Reef was replenished to the point of having the most coral cover in 36 years.   The guy lied about Australia, probably assuming that Americans are too stupid to find out what's going-on on the other side of the planet.  Michael Mann is a protected jerk.  One day the protection will suddenly vanish.  The puppeteers will cut the strings.  For now, stay away from the guy.

https://www.graincentral.com/news/agribusiness/graincorp-posts-record-result-harvest-report/

 https://www.bluemarblealbum.com/2022/10/green-and-white-australia.html

https://www.bluemarblealbum.com/2022/09/great-barrier-reef.html 

https://www.bluemarblealbum.com/2022/09/rugged-australian-2022-winter.html

All in all, Michael Mann is the ultimate Climate Denier in having denied the existence of the Medieval Warm Period & the Mini-Ice-Age, not to mention part of the 1940 to 1979 temperature decline, with all of his "math trick" talent.   See: climategate emails.  

See:  =====>   The Climategate Emails w/ introductory narrations.   <=====

Now, concerning the 1950s (in part), the '60s (in whole), & the '70s (predominately so), the cooling trend had gotten to the point where England's growing season was shortened by two weeks.  No matter what today's lying propagandists publish, it was very cold back then.  In fact, as American schoolchildren walked toward their homes, they had to turn around and walk backwards, so that the bitter cold wind would not directly stream down their shirt/blouse collars.  

It was assumed at the time that Winters were to be bitterly cold, as a rule.  This is why the warming trend of 1983 & 1984 surprised people.  In fact, February 1998 was so nice that it scared people, including radio icon Paul Harvey.  Then, when the coldest winter in 40 years arrived (in 2014), humanity realized that the climate is cyclical.

See:   New York Times, May 21, 1975

Briffa (2000) Reconstruction (before fitting to temperature). Left-version from Briffa (2000); right-varying the Tornetrask and Urals versions to newer versions.
The proxy evidence showed a decline in surfaces temps from the WWII period to the new millennium.

Enter Keith Raphael Briffa (1952 - 2017).  He was the quintessential tree ring proxy advocate.  This means that he was an aficionado in Dendroclimatology.  His climate "reconstruction" of the past 1,000 years -- abridged into 600 years -- goes as follows:

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/briffa_recon.gif
The red section above is what Mann was praised for hiding, in the Climategate emails.

Below: Look at the YELLOW LINE, toward the right side of the predominately blue graph.  Look closely at the "0.0C" temperature anomaly X-axis.  If the Briffa reconstruction were not deleted, Michael Mann could not have drawn a steeply upward sloping line to represent drastic warming. 

Now, the Y-axis scale on the chart below is not remarkable, because the whole chart involves no more than 1.5 degree Celsius in variability.  Thus, the chart only deals with small increases or decreases in the temperature anomaly (aka temperature changes.)  Using smaller increments exaggerates the slope of a graph and serves to deceive people, instead of enlightening them.  It makes that which is little look much more pronounced than it really is.

BELOW:  Look at the Briffa Reconstruction again, in a more clear view.  It's based on tree ring density only.  The Briffa line is green and it starts at the Year 1400 or so.  

As far as goes Mann, he has two lines on that graph.  The thinner line is dark blue and it doesn't begin until 1580.  That was ever-so-coincidentally after the great heatwave & drought of 1540.  None the less, that thinner dark blue line only involves temperatures from Latitude 30N to 70N.  This means that it does NOT involve global temperatures.  After all, no southern hemispheric temperatures are involved, and no northern tropical temperatures are involved.  

The Tropics are 23.5 degrees latitude, north & south.  Yet, Michael Mann's math doesn't begin until the 30th parallel north.  Welcome to Michael Mann's real math trick.  It's the trick where you leave numbers out of the equation.

The other line of Mann, the black one, involves all Northern Hemispheric temps from 1000 C.E to 2000 C.E.  However, it's the dark blue "30N-70N" line which is the one able to hide the decline. 

https://camirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/fig2-212.gif

 https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/briffa_versions.gif

Note that the slope of the temperature decline was very pronounced.  So, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change simply cut off the decline at the Year 1960.  Then came Michael Mann and his bag of tricks. The disappearing act ensued.

The MBH Hockey Stick Graph--- was never test driven or tested for cracks.  (M=Mann, B=Bradley, H=Hughes)

Michael Mann, Decline Hider Extraordinaire, never revealed the data sets that he used to justify the drawing of his asininely ridiculous hockey stick climate graph.  Thus, he never justified why he deleted the historically known Medieval Warm Period and the very well chronicled Mini Ice Age.  

Rumor had it that Mann dropped the use of proxy evidence as soon as it showed a decline in surface temperatures.  He then included thermostat stats, in its place.  This is the act of mixing apples with oranges.

The irony to that graph was that it was a straight declining line for 1,000 years, by a half degree, as if Climate were in a perpetually stagnate coffin, except for handful of upticks.  One uptick on his very fraudulent graph was during the Wolf Minimum.  Oops.  He denied the Little Ice Age at its historic beginning. 

The Wolf Minimum came in 1280 and preceded the Great Plague of 1348.  The Great Plague is often regarded as the start of the Mini Ice Age.  Actually, 1280 C.E. can be regarded as the start of the 550 year age of Ice Dominance.  

None the less, the Briffa reconstruction had temperatures that were higher at the start of the 20th century.  Thus, the real decline was a sharper downward slope. Mann decided to make the slope much more gradual.  This meant that, according to Michael Mann, there are no natural mechanisms to create weather variations on an upward temperature trend more than half a degree.  According to Mann, upward trends can only be accomplished by the use of the combustible engine.   Yet, drastic weather changes occurred throughout history ... long before the invention of the combustible engine and the Mack Truck. 

Well, there were a number of climate change scenarios in the past 4,000 years, when there were no combustible engines or coal power plants.  In some cases, there weren't even chariots.  Michael Mann's graph is an insult to human intelligence.  Well, all of Michael Mann is an insult to human intelligence ... not merely his hockey stick graph.

During the Renaissance Era Ice Age, there were still occasional warm Summers and hot days throughout that time.  One example was the June 28, 1778 Battle of Monmouth which involved 25,000 troops.  It was fought in present-day Freehold New Jersey.  That was a huge number of soldiers for the American Revolutionary War.  The June 1778 battle ended with the British withdrawing its troops at night, incidentally.  

In addition, there were droughts during those centuries, including the 1540s Tudor Drought.  There were catastrophic hurricanes, too, even though the atmospheric co2 count was very low, when compared to today.  As an example, 1780 was a catastrophic year with hurricane damage being its highlight.  One hurricane killed 22,000 people, in 1780.

The 2nd most asinine thing Michael Mann ever said in front of a camera.  

Michael Mann was asked how much CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere.  Mann confidently said, "Half the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in ten years," ... in order to prevent a 1.5C catastrophic temperature rise.  Stop there.  That spoken line shows that Mann either knows nothing about the new findings in atmospheric physics or he is just not thinking when he talks.

Proxy history showed that not even a 2C rise is catastrophic, but rather, a 2C rise accompanied the rise of the great & historic Roman Empire.  For the record, it was scientifically & professionally surmised, via Mediterranean proxy material, that the Roman Warm Period was TWO degrees CELSIUS warmer than it is today.

Plus, the temperature rise helped the Romans finally conquer the hard hitting Gaul army of Chieftain Vercingetorix, in an eight year-long war --- in a land known as present-day France.  Thus, a 1.5C rise in surface temperature is NOT anywhere near catastrophic.  

For the record, the Gauls used to terrorize Italy ... demand tribute, take Italian gold, etc.  So, Julius decided to stop the terror attacks and bring back to Italy the Roman gold that had Vercingetorix's fingerprints on it.

None the less, here is the supreme asininity of that one Michael Mann assertion, concerning deleting half the CO2 from the atmosphere:

{1} Half of today's level of co2 = 210 parts per million (ppm).  That constitutes 50 ppm LESS THAN during cave-man days.  That constitutes 73 ppm LESS THAN the start of the 19th Century, aka the Napoleonic Era.  Both time periods occurred when the human population was much smaller than today.

See for yourself:  ***>  Atmospheric CO2 graph, starting at 1800  <***

{2a}  Today's population is 8 BILLION in human beings, meaning that much more crop harvesting is needed today than during the Napoleonic War Years when the world population was approximately 1 billion.  Thus, much more CO2 is needed today, and coincidentally enough, the atmosphere is presently providing the extra needed amount of CO2 for our era.  

{2b} CO2 is the KEY to PHOTOSYNTHESIS.  When CO2 goes below 150 ppm, all photosynthesis halts.  Life on Earth soon follows suit.  Dropping the CO2 count to 210 ppm is irresponsible.

{2c} NASA has already reported on the added greening of the present-day Arctic Circle during the Summer months.  Extra CO2 increases photosynthesis throughout the Earth.  In as much, IF you want to "go green," the first thing that you have to do is INCREASE THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVEL.  Growers do this to their greenhouses, as a rule.

See:  NASA's Satellite Technology shows the greening of the Earth 

          NASA reports a greener Earth of recent

           CO2 levels making Earth Greener

            Added co2 and added plant growth demonstration

The asininity of Michael Mann and his fellow racketeer, Al Gore, is that they are doing the opposite of what it takes to "go green."  This anti-co2 mindset is the Supreme Asininity of the climate doomsayers.

In as much, pursuant to the NY Times vs Sullivan case law authority, I, a private citizen, state my opinion of public figure, Michael Mann:  

Michael Mann is a contrived fad.  He's an artificially propped-up mouthpiece, presented as the wisdom of the ages. 

Mann is only famous, because of the hockey stick graph.  Yet,  he never showed the public the data sets upon which his neon-lighted hockey stick climate graph came to be.   He could have made up that graph as much as some people made-up record breaking high temperatures in those parts of Africa which had NO WEATHER MONITORING STATIONS.

Thus, the one hockey stick graph which made Mann a contrived news show icon has never been tested for cracks.  It has never been test-driven.  Would you buy a car you never test-drove?  Of course not.  So, we the People of the United States do NOT buy Michael Mann's untested climate change hockey stick graph.  

This is especially true for those of us who worked outdoors, year after year, and decade after decade.  This is because we are experienced enough to know that ====> Climate is cyclical.

Plus, Michael Mann has a very financial conflict of interest in the promotion of his hockey stick graph which omits the historically supported Mini-Ice-Age which included:

{1a} the great frosts, great floods, crop failures & mass starvation often mentioned in the Bristol Chronicles.

{1b}, the Sporer Solar Minimum which has now been concluded to have actually existed from the starting point of 1460 C.E.

{2} The irony & counter-intuitive hot year of 1540, followed by the cold account of 1640, in showing how Mann's virtual straight-lined graph needed more spikes in it, to reflect historic climate reality.

{3} The North American drought year of 1580, showing more of the need of upward spikes in the Mann Hockey Stick graph.

{4} The Grindelwald Fluctuation of 1560 - 1630, which even included out-of-season snowfalls.

{5} The well-known Maunder Solar Minimum which included warm Summers, in addition to ice-ridden Winters.

{6} The Dalton Solar Minimum of 1790 - 1830 which included the 1816 Summer That Never Was.

All in all, the "Mann, Bradley, & Hughes" graph is typically Orwellian, in that it rewrites history. 

Why don't the newscasters ask Michael Mann how much personal money he personally made since the publishing of his hockey stick graph?  Why doesn't Michael Mann simply come out and let us Americans know how much currency was transacted into his financial portfolio in the form of taxpayer dollars?

None the less, for the past 4,000 years, climate change has literally been occurring every 124 to 600 years.  Climate is a long-term roller coaster ride.   Climate is cyclical.

Ah, yes.  Michael Mann.  Hiding the Decline Since 1999.

Michael Mann proved himself to be utterly heartless, if not an indifferent psychopath, against an elderly retired Air Force pilot, on account of the pilot saying that, even though Michael Mann was teaching at Penn State, he should have been at the State pen (penitentiary), instead.   One sentence was spoken, and a ridiculous amount of Canadian civil lawsuit attorney fees ensued.

The retired & elderly pilot who earned a doctorate degree let me know how much suffering Mann put him through, and he informed me that he intended to let the world know about those sufferings after the lawsuit ended.  Well, the lawsuit ended.  There was no communication between me and the Canadian gentleman since I left Chicago, in 2019.  He recently passed-on into eternity.  His videos are his legacy.

And remember, pursuant to NY Times vs Sullivan, a private citizen may publicly state his opinion of a public figure, in the United States.  I'll be politely reserved for now.  I only stated half of my opinion thus far.

It suffices to state that some people in this world are really sick jokes, and for long periods of relative time, it appears that they will get away with every wrong they have ever performed.  But, appearances are not all what they appear to be.  History repeats itself.  

Do the math on this one ... on the person who caused schoolchildren dread, and who caused gasoline prices to skyrocket, in his role as an advisor to the Dementia-ridden president.  The same person caused an elderly former air force pilot the loss of his life savings and the gain of accompanying dread.  Justice, in the end, prevails.

For now, be like a charming Latin gentleman, even if you hate us Latins to the marrow of our beings.  Do NOT write to Michael Mann.  Only address his superiors and the Court of Public Opinion, as well as a RICO court.  Do NOT walk up to Michael Mann in a restaurant.  Let him have a relaxing time.  Do NOT picket in front of his house, his office, etc.  Be as charming as a Ricardo Montalban.  Charm doesn't hurt anyone.   Meanwhile, simply boycott Michael Mann.

The goal is to see to it that humanity clearly sees that Michael Mann and the less than brilliant Al Gore have been lying, in sleight-of-hand deceit, all along.  In order to achieve this goal, it is NOT necessary to harass anyone in a restaurant or to picket in front of a domicile.

People like Michael Mann are necessary to avoid, because he's a liar who will claim that you threatened him, if you get anywhere close to him ... or he will tell some lie about you.  So, stay away from Hockey Sticks Mann.  Simply boycott him.

Sincerely,

                                           Private US Citizen #40,801,958.

                                                  There is a meaning to that number

                                                

July 11, 2023

Ocean Temperatures

The True Textbook-Defined Signature of Global Warming 

 If there is no temperature rise in the middle of the Troposphere, then there is no global warming.  There was no Tropospheric temperature rise between 1999 and 2016.  This was called the Hiatus (the resting --- the "Global Warming Pause").  

Then certain scientists schemed to find a way to claim that there was no hiatus between 1999-2016, as if scientists didn't get smart until 2017.  They literally claimed that there was accumulated heat hiding in the oceans.   Stop here.   Penalty Flag Time.   Insult to the Intelligence.  Let's go through the steps that will dispel the deception:

Let's begin with the thesis statement that appears at the bottom of this discourse.  As to the assertion of scientists in need of Congressional funding & Al Gore's approval, in their claim that there is heat from the burning of fossil fuels hidden in the oceans in mass quantities (or even in little quantities):

"That is super easy to prove as a total falsehood via ===>

1 - the oceans' Latent Heat of Vaporization Mechanism, followed by advection (wind transferring the heat horizontally, as opposed to vertically as happens in convection)

2- the 7,000-to-9,000 foot deep Aphotic Zone in every ocean (other than the Arctic and its 653 foot zone), along with the half-mile deep Dysphotic Zone in every ocean.

3- the absence of finding any pronounced, Godzilla-sized, ocean surface temperature "anomalies" that go beyond one season in time --- or even five days,

4- and tourists flocking to the oceans every Summer for the sake of the cool ocean breezes, along with tourists going on Love Boat type ocean cruises.  Not very many customer complaints there.  Simply ask the cruise-line operators.

There is a fifth observation:  It's the coastline real estate industry.  People are still buying shoreline property.  They have no buyer's remorse in any mass scale.  

The oceans are supposed to be relentlessly heating and the sea level is supposed to be elevating to a catastrophic height.  But, the real estate industry that deals in shorelines and oceanside residences have been doing robust business for decades.  The residents should have noticed something wrong by now, causing them to leave for inland property.  Seaside property has been a sign of prestige for decades.

The four predominate features can be called the Four Horsemen of Reality, assuring the reasonable person that there was no "carbon foot-printed Global Warming" filling any of the oceans during the Global Warming Hiatus of 1999 to 2016.  There simply was a stop in the increase of global atmospheric temperatures during that time span.   And there was fraud being committed by the people associated with the East Anglia office.  Yes, a roomful of scientists & politicians can easily be (or become) a den of thieves.

Seasons, Mathematics, and suspect data tampering

Now, a year might have a hot Summer, but not below-average Winter temps, meaning that four seasons might statistically balance each other.  Just because you have a hot Summer, it doesn't indicate temperature in the Mid-Troposphere.

Then comes sleight-of-hand reporting, instead the straight forward type.  A report might start with the end of Winter, claiming Winter to have ended higher than normal.  The average reader would assume that the entire Winter was higher than normal, when the fact in one specific case was that the rest of the Winter season made all of Winter colder than the year previous.  

All in all, there is this intolerable pea-and-shell game with the truth.  Government employees want to make the climate look in peril, so that their departments will get more Congressional funding.  In as much . . .

The only people who should be allowed to participate in a climate debate are those paid zero dollars and zero cents in any activities related to climate.  An individual highly paid by "carbon credit" commissions or government funding money has a conflict of interest that morally disqualifies him/her from the conversation.  Such an individual cannot be enabled to insert manipulative propaganda under the guise of scientific fact.  

Some of that manipulative propaganda involved "misplacing" data numbers and "graph shifting."  Thus, if you make money claiming that human activity causes catastrophic climate change, you're disqualified.  If you make money claiming that human activity does not do such a thing, then you too are disqualified.  

For the record, as of the time of this writing, September 25, 2022, I was never paid a penny for anything concerning this subject, this topic, this issue.  All of these 24 or 25 or 26 written climate discourses thus far have been one public service, done entirely for free.  I don't even get advertising fee commissions, at present ... and in the past.

Let us begin with the atmospheric science aspect of this issue: 

The United States National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration recognizes that ===>  

>Functionally Effective Sunlight does NOT penetrate the oceans any deeper than 656 feet.   This layer of ocean water is known as the Euphotic Zone.  From the 656 foot point downward, photosynthesis is impossible.  So, throughout an added depth of 2,624 feet (which is directly below the Euphotic Zone), the descending sunlight becomes increasingly darker.  The twilight layer of an ocean is the Dysphotic Zone, and its lowest depth is about a half mile from the ocean surface.   This means that a vast liquid area gets colder and colder as depth/descent continues. No Global Warming there.

>Below the Dysphotic Zone line there is no light at all, and this super deep chamber of ocean is called the Aphotic Zone.  It begins at the 3,280 feet mark below the ocean surface.  The Aphotic Zone is marked by darkness and 39F of cold, until one reaches the bottom of the ocean where "hot spot" volcanoes, aka hydrothermal vents, are the sum total of the ocean floors' heating system.  

The ocean floors are chemosynthesis country, where life abounds all-around these vents, with none of the organisms living on photosynthesis.  At the ocean floors, there still is darkness.

Remember, remember, remember:  CO2 has no heating power in the dark of the ocean, and it has insignificantly feeble power in the Dysphotic Zone of every ocean, proven by the coldness there.  Even at that, co2's heating power (which is a very minor role for the Earth's atmosphere) consists in "retaining" ("capturing") infrared light. As a solid and as a liquid, CO2 itself is actually used in the commercial world as a . . . refrigerant.  Welcome to the world of irony.

The questions that remain of heat in the oceans, which is not spreading into the more spacious cold areas of the oceans, are for exploratory research groups.  The questions would involve learning if there is any other feature from sunlight that would contribute to providing heat to the oceans.  

This would include Coronal Mass Ejections and the by-products of the solar wind, as in Alfven Waves and other cosmic undulations.  There is also the Chromosphere and Photosphere, in addition to the Sun's Corona.

Researching the Earth's Mantle wouldn't hurt, either.  None the less, it was completely fraudulent to have claimed that 70% of "man-made, fossil-fuel" heat was/is "soaked-up" by the oceans.  The vast cold of the oceans prove otherwise.  Time has illustrated that an office filled with scientists and politicians is often nothing more than a den of thieves ... and deliberate liars.

>Moreover, at the depth of 660 feet, directly below the Euphotic Zone, the ocean's Temperature drastically decreases, to approximately 55 degrees F (13C).  This spot in each ocean is called the Thermocline, and when traveling past this depth, the temperature decreases to approximately 39 degrees F (4C). 

This 39F is the temperature of the rest of each ocean ... throughout the descent to the ocean floors.  Incidentally, the ocean floor hydrovents exist where the tectonic plates of two continents are spreading apart, usually.  Their behavior is tamed, because of the massive weight of a massive ocean basin above.

Concerning the oceans' hydrostatic pressure, for every 33 feet of descent, the pressure increases by one Atmosphere.  One atmosphere is equal to 1,013 millibars.  This is 14.69 psi (pounds per square inch), and that's the standard atmospheric air pressure of the surface of the Earth, at sea level.

Sunlight's Shallow Reach

Then there is the matter of sunlight upon the ocean surfaces.  Not very much of it bounces off of the ocean surfaces and rockets back into outer-space.  It's the opposite of sunlight hitting snowscapes.  None the less, the existence of Specific Latent Heat of Vaporization is the heating system provided by the ocean, at its general surface area.  This mechanism very effectively rids the ocean's first layer of overly-accumulated heat.

Remember, sunlight does not rocket through any ocean, as it slowly degrades in intensity, until it reaches the 656 foot depth of any ocean.  That's not very much space for oceans that are 10,000+, 12,000+, and 13,000 feet in average depth.  And it's not very much at all, for the ocean trenches that dip to 28,000 and 35,000 foot depths.  Thus, it is a falsehood to claim that oceans are anywhere close to being the vast heat depositories that the European Union claimed.  

The surmise is that, when ocean temperatures do rise, they only slowly rise as a result of heat from the ocean floor ... from hydrothermal vents "aka hot spots" which can reach 700F.  This includes, as a source, the Earth's mantle seeping through tectonic plates that are in the slow process of sliding apart from each other.  

Everyone's Similar Personal Experience 

The author of this Blue Marble Album lived at the Atlantic Ocean's shoreline for the majority of 10 consecutive years.  There's one experience with the Summertime ocean that he noticed and took for granted.  It's the reason why so many people vacation at the ocean.  Very simply, it's the cool breezes coming from oceans during daylight that make oceans a preferred vacation destination.  It's like a really big fan operating in the distance.  It's quit nice, actually.

Likewise, the winds from the Atlantic during Wintertime were irritatingly chilly.   No bargain there.

The fact that so many people vacation at the ocean is evidence that the oceans weren't heating-up as apocalyptically as advertised.  The ocean was perceived as being a relief from the heat, by aspiring vacationers.

Concerning the author of this Blue Marble Album, every summer day at that particular Atlantic Shoreline was between 93F and 97F, with the temperature never reaching 100F and not very often being warmer than inland towns which did regularly reach and exceed 100F.  

Ten consecutive years of experience can assure you that there was no true increase in ocean temperatures being felt by any tourist or resident.  The temperature increases were only in the tampered government paperwork ... as in the "homogenized" temperature graphs of the NOAA.  That is to say that there was only an increase of ocean temperatures on paper, by those who made their money claiming that such temperature increases existed ... and claiming so, for an increase of taxpayer dollar allocations to the scientists' aforesaid department. 

Do you remember when the Pentagon officially stated that the Arctic Ocean stood a good chance of entirely melting at the end of each Summer, followed by the Russia Navy sailing through the Arctic, into Novia Scotia and New England, thereby invading and conquering America?  

Well, its managers wrote it, in the hopes to inspire the US Congress to give the US military increased government funding.  You see, after the Cold War, the US Congress decreased the military budget, and the Obama administration was portrayed as a peacetime presidency that was going to undo the Bush/Cheney war machine.  So, the US military decided to ... to ... to lie to the American taxpayers they swore to defend ... and to reach into the American taxpayers' pockets more deeply. 

Pycnocline

Concerning the rise in heat from the ocean floor, there is a line in each ocean called the Pycnocline.  It's like a gate that's not always locked.

               |               Ocean depths                        |constant 39F in Aphotic Zone|

Atlantic  |  avg ~12,881 ft \ deepest ~28,232 ft  \ Aphotic Zone depth ~ 9,601 ft

Pacific    | avg ~13,215 ft \ deepest  ~35,840 ft   \ Aphotic Zone depth ~ 9,915 ft

India       | avg ~13,002 ft \ deepest ~23,812 ft  \ Aphotic Zone depth ~ 9,702 ft

Arctic     | avg ~  3,953 ft \ deepest ~17,881 ft  \ Aphotic Zone depth ~    653 ft

Southern | avg ~10,728 ft \ deepest~ 25,383 ft  \ Aphotic Zone depth ~ 7,428 ft

Now, there was the matter of the 2018 "Resplendy-Keeling Paper," authored by Ralph Keeling's team and not by the Dr Charles Keeling of the 1950s.  It was actually called, the Resplandy Research Group Paper.  None the less, the 2018 paper claimed that oceans heated 60% more rapidly than previously realized.  The paper's subject matter was regarded as "startling," and the media heralded it as the smoking gun which absolutely proved the existence of a "climate crisis."  

Within two weeks of time, a mathematically inclined gentleman associated with a Georgia Tech atmospheric science professor discovered decisive mathematical errors in the Ocean Warming Paper.  This discovery negated the entire conclusion of the paper.  A Nicholas Lewis found the errors.  

In sequence, one of the 2018 paper's co-authors publicly admitted the errors, as did the prestigious publisher of the paper.  However, any retractions from the rest of the American media could not be located. 

None the less, at the outset of the study, it was obvious that the paper's thesis statement was a falsehood.  This is because it contradicted a well known scientific fact involving Seas Breezes and Land Breezes.  

Very simply, a change of temperature at any of the oceans is much more slowly accomplished than is the change of temperature at any land surface.  And being that there was no long-term (or even short-term) 60% rate increase in non-polar land surface temperatures anywhere, there surely would not be this phenomenon at the oceans.  Thus, the Keeling Paper (aka the Resplandy Paper) was guaranteed to be marked with error.

Moreover, the invalidated "peer reviewed" paper was contrary to the mechanism of the Specific Latent Heat of Vaporization which is explained in an introductory fashion below.  It involves atmospheric Heat Transfer.

Firstly, take a quick look at ::: Team Keeling & Publisher admit to decisive mathematical errors in doomsday paper

See also ::: Widely Reported & Alarming Ocean Warming Study is Wrong

This too :::   Media Gave Blanket Coverage to Flawed Climate Paper 

Mathematician's Statement :::  Major Problem with Ocean Heat Uptake Paper 

The general rule is that ======> Planet Earth and its oceans are designed to proliferate the TRANSFER OF HEAT; and not to hoard heat. 

In addition:  No sunlight = No Infrared Light = No co2 absorbing infrared heat which would only have ended up in the middle latitudes via the Latent Heat of Vaporization Mechanism, anyway.

illustration of how far light travels in the ocean.

The reality is that the oceans are NOT vaults of co2-captured-heat or any other kind of heat coming from the atmosphere.  The oceans are liquid spring boards that create LATENT HEAT that turns into a vapor, while simultaneously rising out of the oceans, getting caught in a wind, and then traveling to the colder latitudes of Planet Earth, thereby accomplishing its mission of Heat Transfer.

The Latent Heat Mechanism of oceans" tropic & sub-tropic zones involves the RELEASE of heat ... not the absorption of it.   Obama was such a liar, in using the oceans as an excuse for the evident cessation of Atmospheric Global Warming,  and there surely was not any "ocean global warming."  Yet, President Goldman-Sachs Obama, the Drone Strike President, had to designate the key to all life-giving photosynthesis as a pollutant --- as an unwelcome nuisance instead of as the proliferation of life on Earth.

Obama owns a mansion at the Atlantic Coastline, within walking distance of the shoreline, three feet above sea level.  This is his message to the world that he did not believe in the assertion that catastrophic sea level rise was soon to prevail.  Yet, he preached this assertion as the decisive issue on Earth.

What Obama needed to acknowledge was that Nuclear Winter is far worse than Global Warming ever could be.

The Equilibrium Reflex of the Atmosphere

Remember, the atmosphere is always trying to achieve equilibrium, and that is what often causes turbulence and epic weather events to occur.  The attempt to balance-out the Earth's weather conditions, counter-intuitively enough, caused epic & tragic weather events.

The atmosphere of a planet, if it has one, is its gaseous envelope surrounding the planet.  The only part of the vast oceans of Earth which is part of the atmosphere is none other than . . . the latent heat which generates from it via vaporization. 

The oceans were being used as an excuse for the failure of the predictions of Jim Hansen, Michael Mann, Al Gore, John Kerry, and others who want the world to believe that a molecular compound that inhabits less than 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere can control the other 99.95% of the same atmosphere, and then cause the world to heat itself into annihilation.  You've got to be kidding. 

The depth of the Aphotic Zone in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans is 9,000+ feet.  The depth of the Southern Ocean's Aphotic Zone is 7,400 feet.  And finally, the depth of the Arctic Ocean's Aphotic Zone is 653 feet.  None of that part of the oceans is hoarding any increase in atmospheric heat, and that happens to be a massive amount of cubic area.  The oceans are not big tea pots.  They are only able to absorb and transport throughout its water basins the heat that comes from the Earth's mantle, via sliding tectonic plates.  

Incidentally, recent scientific discoveries concluded that the heat which ended the Major Ice Age, aka the last Glacial Maximum, came from the bottom of the oceans and eventually made its way into the Earth's Atmosphere.  The length of time that it took for this allocation of heat to occur was said ... by the research crew ... to have taken 1,300 years of rising ... from the oceans.

Concerning this, a pertinent rule goes as follows: 

Firstly, before the Public School System stopped teaching students how to think with numbers & sequential logic, it was commonly known that it takes 100 calories to elevate the temperature of 1 gram of water from its freezing point to its boiling point.  

~Well, it takes 533 or so calories (2230-2235 joules) to turn a gram of water at 100 degrees Celsius to a gram of vapor at 100 degrees Celsius. It takes much more energy to vaporize something than to melt it.  That's the essence of Latent Heat, and that seems very logical in a science that often seems very counter-intuitive. 

The Number 1 implication of this scientific axiom is that the oceans do NOT have the surplus of caloric energy needed to be hoarding the insane amount of heat that the Barrack Obamas of this world, the Resplendys of this world, the Bill Nyes of this world, and the Keelings of this world claimed that it was hoarding.   The Global Warming Pause of 1999 to 2016 was 100% real ... 100%  true ... 100% authentic.  Period.  

Incidentally, it takes 80 calories of latent heat dispersion to turn a solid like ice into a liquid like water . . . per gram, of course.

There is also the matter of Latent Heat of Condensation:  That's the released heat that turns vapor into liquid ... as when atmospheric water vapor becomes morning dew.  On land, water vapor is affected by lowered nighttime temperatures, resulting in dew being seen in the morning.

Latent heat is released heat that does NOT change the temperature of the material involved.  The released heat only changes the STATE (aka the PHASE) of the material/substance involved.  When measuring condensation, it's basically the Latent Heat of Vaporization with a negative sign placed in front of the number.  Vaporization and condensation have an inverse relationship, as do two things known as:

Sublimation and Deposition.

Sublimation is when a solid turns into a gas without first becoming a liquid.  Deposition is when a gas becomes a solid without first becoming a liquid.  So stated for the record.  For a solid such as ice to turn into vapor, without first turning into liquid, 720 calories is required ... per gram.  Sunlight can provide this. 

Incidentally, Latent Heat activity achieves the objective of loosening molecular bonds within a substance/material, thereby widening inter-molecular space within.  After all, a solid is tight, and a gas is loose

In as much, you studying "the latent heat of the vaporization of water" (for starters) will take you out of the dark.  

The following educational video might help:  Latent Heat Tutorial

This educational video might seem more clear to you:  FuseSchool: Specific Latent Heat

The bottom line is that there is a difference between the Heat of Vaporization and Temperature per se (Sensible Heat).  The heat of vaporization has a mission of turning water into a vapor which will end up in the colder latitudes of Planet Earth.  This is the foundation of the Transfer of Heat throughout the spherical Earth.

Temperature-Per-Se (sensible heat), on the other hand, is mostly understood as a steady state routine, especially as it applies to ocean water, being that land temperatures change more rapidly than any ocean water does.   

Q: And why does ocean water temperature change more slowly?

ANS 1:  Air is more flexible than water.

ANS 2:  The pressure remains predominately unchanged in its predictable rate of increase and decrease with ocean water level; much like the adiabatic rate with air temperature.  Water pressure only changes by the change of location downward or upward. Air pressure changes come to you.  This includes the arrival of hurricanes.  Air pressure can become intensely turbulent ... not by the increase in pressure, but by the decreasing of it.  Deadly hurricanes are low pressure systems.

Both water and air pressure follow the rule of the Coriolis Effect, however.  Concerning water, it's called Eckman Transport, and it travels downward in the ocean like an angular spiral staircase.

BTW, there is a difference between steam and boiling water. The only similarity between the two is that neither one is occurring at the oceans' surfaces, as John Kerry & Barrack Obama would want you to believe.

The Heat of vaporization sounds more active and energetic. In contrast, temperature per se (Sensible Heat) preserves something.  Meanwhile, the heat of vaporization changes something.  Thus, a steady state temperature of the ocean is the science of statics, while the heat of vaporization is the science of dynamics. 

Q: Now, why are ocean vapors instinctively traveling to the temperate zones, above the Tropics?  

ANS:  In both Hemispheres, from the Latitude 40 degrees to the Pole, more heat exits Planet Earth's atmosphere into outer-space than enters the Earth's atmosphere from the same outer-space . . . 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Ocean vapor travel is the natural attempt to equalize the Earth's atmospheric temperature throughout the planet.  It prevents a snowball Earth.

The hue of the coldest January in 40 years, by Patrick Anthony Pontillo

In Review:

If the aforementioned zipped over your head and you failed to understand the point made, take note of the following: 

During the Obama Years, there was the Global Warming Pause ... the Hiatus.  Well, pro-Al Gore scientists ... in search of lucrative government funding ... used the oceans as an excuse for the Global Atmospheric Temperature Pause.  Those scientists claimed that Planet Earth was still heating-up in an unending progression of time, and that the increase of heat was being absorbed by the oceans.  That is super easy to prove as a total falsehood via 

1 - the oceans' Latent Heat of Vaporization Mechanism which mostly is the driver in changing phases of substances from liquid to vapor, when it comes to the oceans. 

2- the vast Aphotic Zones in every ocean, 

3- the absence of finding any pronounced, Godzilla-sized, ocean surface temperature "anomalies" that go beyond one season in time,

4- and tourists flocking to the oceans every Summer, along with tourists going on ocean cruises, as in Love Boat type scenarios.  Not very many customer complaints are there.  Simply ask the cruise-line operators.

The four features assured the reasonable person that there was no "carbon foot-printed Global Warming" filling any of the oceans during the Global Warming Hiatus of 1999 to 2016.  There simply was a stop in the increase of global atmospheric temperatures during that time span.   And there was fraud being committed by the people associated with the East Anglia office.  Yes, a roomful of scientists can easily be (or become) a den of thieves --- as in Theft of Deception, especially when they alter the 1990s graphs to make the early 1920s look like the coldest years of the century, when the truth is that 1921 was the year of the great meltdown ... or else "melt pulse."  And 1922 was Heat Wave City, also.  1923 was no cool-down either.

The cessation in atmospheric temperature rise is the reason why the East Anglia scientists and pro-Al Gore people changed the name of "Global Warming" to "Climate Change."  The fact that the title, Global Warming, was changed to, Climate Change, is evidence that the scientists knew that there was NO GLOBAL WARMING from 1999 to 2016.  Such persons are known as frauds, and anyone who accepts money based on a fraud is known as a thief.  There are remedies in civilization for theft, especially Grand Larceny.  Do the math herein.

Now, various agencies claim that the oceans have great capacities to hold heat, especially "man-made" industrial heat.  This makes it sound as if the heat remains in the oceans for decades.  Well, whatever heat does find its way to the ocean surface quickly gets jetted out into the air via the Latent Heat of Vaporization Mechanism.  

Thus, if the oceans were holding tremendous amounts of man-made heat, then we all would have noticed it in atmospheric temperature "anomaly" rises that remained constant, and not merely being something seasonal --- such as Summertime.  Record cold weather was repeatedly being experienced, from Australia to Niagara Falls, and from Brazil to Nova Scotia, as of recent.

Look at it this was:  Simply because a cop wears a badge, it doesn't mean that he is a just & honest man, especially as was the case in the American Segregation South, in 20th Century South Africa, in Nazi Germany, in Latin American dictatorships, in Leopold's Belgian colonies, in the Court of Oyer (Salem witch trials), and in the good old USSR.  Likewise, simply because a guy is wearing a lab coat, it doesn't make him honest, especially when he is in dire need of Congressional funding, or NGO donations, or even grass-roots donations.  

People have lied to gain power and money, whether they succeeded in their attempts or not.  Look at Peter the Great's sister, for example ... and thousands of other people.  Sometimes the lying occurred with a badge or a lab coat or a crown.  Scientists need to be vetted and audited.

All in all, other things trigger hurricanes ... not the molecular compound which inhabits less than 1/2 of 1% of the Earth's Atmosphere and which has a night-light's radiative forcing of 3.7 watts per meter squared.  CO2 does NOT drive the other 99.95% of Planet Earth's atmosphere.  

Now, if you insist that greenhouse gases trigger turbulent weather, then you must concede that the only greenhouse gas that has any power do to such a thing is WATER VAPOR only.   CO2 is NOT the Big Bad Wolf.  It's Plant Nectar ... plant food ... plant fertilizer.  CO2 is Pygmalion giving life to a sculpture, on a molecular scale.

None the less, the answer to Barrack Obama, as he sits in his oceanside mansion, is this:  

If the oceans were hoarding the heat that was absent from the atmosphere during the 1999 to 2016 era, then there was no Heat Transfer occurring throughout Planet Earth, being that the oceans were sitting on the heat.  If there had been no Heat Transfer occurring between 1999 and 2016, then the Great Lakes would have been turned into glaciers ... for starters.  

Then there would have been the matter of Lake Champlain, the Hudson Bay, the Boston River, the Allegheny River, the Ohio River, the Missouri River, the Snake River, the Colorado River, as well as Niagara Falls.   In general, it would have been Ice Cube City.  Therefore Barrack, you are a liar.  Typical for a politician sitting in a seaside mansion.

July 7, 2023

1913: co2 = 301 ppm --- 116 ppm LESS than today. Year of record heat --- killer heat.

As far back as 109 years ago, the experts ... the observers ... the seafarers conjectured that many glaciers would vanish in soon enough time --- mostly, by the middle of the 20th Century; 72 years ago.  This is because, at the beginning of the 20th Century, the ice was getting thinner.  The seafarers were literally noticing Glacier Retreat, firsthand.

As far as goes Glacier National Park, it was first predicted that all of its glaciers would disappear by 1948.  It's now 2022, and those glaciers are still there.  The rates of glacier retreat were miscalculated, because the approaching temperature decline that Michael Mann would hide was not taken into account.  That decline was predominately in the 1960s & 1970s, with some of it in the beginning of the '90s. account.  As far as goes the more recent predictions of all the glaciers being gone by 2020, that was scientifically unfounded.  That was a political ploy, to create enough fear amongst the citizens, to have them plea for scientist intervention, to keep the glaciers in tact.  No human needs a glacier.  Humans need warmth, and so too do their crops.

The bottom line is that it is 100% false to claim that the world is going through "unprecedented glacier decline."  Being that this exact same thing occurred in the 1910s, '20s, and '30s, it's not unprecedented.  This has been occurring, on and off, for over a hundred years.  It's the same old same old, illustrating that Climate is Cyclical.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/56530521e4b0c307d59bbe97/1468167019140-DGERBEMDTDX6KTWF0WFS/DV_obs.png?content-type=image%2Fpng
Hottest Day, Thursday July 10, 1913, Greenland Ranch, Calif, presently called Furnace Creek.

Always remember that the scientists claiming "a clear & present climate crisis" have a financial CONFLICT OF INTEREST that will cost the American taxpayer even more than the present $31 trillion national debt.  Firstly, the scientists make their money on claiming that a crisis is occurring somewhere in United States Taxpayer Jurisdiction that only they can solve, provided that you pay them lots and lots of taxpayer dollars.  They say what they say with the intended goal of getting YOUR TAX DOLLARS into their pockets.  That's how they make their money.  

Only people who have no financial interest in stating "it's-true" or "it's-a-scam" have the right to assess the credibility of the present greenhouse gas assertion that [a] 2 per parts per million of methane is going to cause the world to come to an end, along with [b] one part per 3 million of Nitrous Oxide, [c] co2 which exists at less than one-half of 1% of the atmosphere es  of either yes or no, as true the credibility of that hysteric and overly exaggerated assertion.  At this point in time, the two things which are 100% sure is that 1} Planet Earth is NOT at a point of no return, 2} Climate is cyclical.  Within that cycle are very nice weather seasons and very deadly ones, depending on the stage of the cycle.

Secondly, in order to get your dollars into their pockets (via congressional funding or ngo funding), they have to create a catastrophic disaster that will result in the immediate end of the world, without their taxpayer-funded services.  Third, they constructed a narration of pending doom which is really easy to refute, concerning what was stated in congressional committee & subcommittee meetings.  Her is an example of the Climate Change Movement being a total farce:

A certain individual who should be prosecuted for lying to Congress stated that the added atmospheric co2 will soon make all the ocean corrosive, killing all the ocean life.  He said that this will happen when the ocean water's PH reaches 7.7.  STOP right there.  This was a blatant lie that even someone as clueless as an American politician could catch.  Observe . . .

A 7.7 PH is alkaline, also known as BASE.  Neutral is a 7.0 PH.  At present, the ocean is 8.1.  PH does not acquire corrosive properties until it reaches either 4.0 to 11.0.

Newsflash:  Planet Earth can survive without them.  What mankind needs is freedom from the which will injure, impair, or even kill the body over time.  That would be synthetic chemicals of varying sort.  Money needs to be invested in that scandal ... not in going to war against life-giving co2.

 Let's review once again:  Claims of melting glaciers were in progress as far back as over one hundred years ago.  This is NOTHING NEW.  The concept of "global warming," "climate change," and "glacier retreat" existed over a hundred years ago.  Yet, all of those glaciers are still with us to one extent or another, except for the Okj√∂kull glacier in Iceland.  One missing glacier isn't the End of the World.  In fact, it's cold temperatures that kill humans, wild animals, pets, crops, leafage, etc.