The goal of this blog is to create a list of super facts. Important facts that are true with very high certainty and yet surprising, misunderstood, or disputed by many. This blog aims to be challenging, educational, and fun, without it being clickbait. I determine veracity using evidence, data from reputable sources and longstanding scientific consensus. Prepare to be challenged (I am). Intentionally seek the truth not confirmation of your belief.
Superfact 26: The disputed Hockey Stick Graph showing that recent global warming is unprecedented in the context of the past thousand years has been shown to be correct.
Initially some scientists criticized it for being wrong, and the rightwing media and think tanks, and especially politicians criticized the graph and even attacked the scientists involved accusing them of being frauds. Al Gore was harshly criticized for using the hockey stick in his documentary “an inconvenient truth”. There were congressional hearings, politicians intimidating scientists, fake scandals, threats, and lawsuits.
The propaganda campaign against the hockey stick graph succeeded in winning over the public and that included me. I was for the longest time convinced that the hockey stick graph was wrong and perhaps a fraud. I was wrong. I had been bamboozled just like large segments of the American public.
The scandal around the hockey stick curve and the related climate-gate (fake scandal) was used to question the entire concept of global warming / climate change. As you may know, the evidence clearly shows that global warming is happening and is caused by us.
It should be noted that the way Mann, Bradley, and Hughes implemented their statistical analysis was not 100% correct, but the discrepancy was very small and did not make a big difference. However, this discrepancy was very useful for their detractors.
The controversy led to an investigation resulting in the so-called North Report. The 2006 North Report published by the United States National Academy of Sciences endorsed the MBH studies with a few reservations.
Subsequent research has resulted in more than two dozen reconstructions, using various refined statistical methods and combinations of proxy records. They are not identical to the original hockey-stick graph but closely resemble it and consistently show a slow long-term cooling trend changing into relatively rapid warming in the 20th century.
Since there is now a scientific consensus supporting the hockey stick graph, it is important news, and a lot of people still have not gotten the memo or are refusing to believe it, I consider it a super fact.
Before The Hockey Stick Graph
Before the hockey stick curve there was a lot of talk about the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Many people used these periods to cast doubt on global warming claims by scientists. I should say that the climate scientists claim about global warming was not based on the temperature record for the last 1,000 years. It was because the observed recent uptick in average global temperatures was not expected naturally.
Their worries were based on the fact that our greenhouse gas emissions could explain the uptick whilst there was no climate cycle or natural phenomenon that could explain it. That combined with the fact that the manner in which the warming was happening (it’s fingerprint if you will) showed that it was our greenhouse gases causing it.
So, the comparably high temperatures during the medieval warm period and the very cold temperatures during the little ice age should not have mattered much. But as you can see in the graph below, the old temperature graphs could be used by global warming skeptics.
It should be noted that previous estimates for the temperatures during the medieval warm period and the little ice age were based insufficient data and guesstimates.
The graph below from the 1990 IPCC report shows three curves, a red, a blue and a black one, and a green extension to the blue from 1998 to 2007. The red graph shows a large bulge corresponding to the medieval warm period, a significant drop corresponding to the little ice age, and a minor uptick in recent temperatures. The blue curve shows a flattened medieval warm period with only a minor little ice age and sharper uptick in recent temperatures. The green extension stretching from 1998 to 2007 shows a significantly sharper uptick in temperatures. The black curve is an alternative temperature curve by Moberg.
As you can see the estimates for the average global temperatures during the medieval warm period and little ice age were too large. When the hockey stick curve came along (next graph), a propaganda tool was diminished, which led to the media storm.
The red line is from the 1990 IPCC report and shows what was believed at the time about temperatures during the last 1,000 years. The blue line is the (MBH) hockey stick graph from 1998. Graph taken from this page. William M. Connolley derivative work: Dave souza, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia CommonsThe so-called hockey stick curve depicting the last 1,000 years. The blue line is the first hockey stick curve ever created (by Michael Mann). He used proxy measurements such as tree rings, green-dots 30-year average, red temperature measurements. Wikimedia commons <<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en>>. This graph is taken from this page.
Multiple Hockey Stick Graphs
As mentioned, various refined statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, has resulted in another couple of dozen hockey stick curves that largely agree with the original MBH hockey curve. Below are a few examples taken from various sources. The first two graphs below are taken from the real climate website, a website created by climate scientists.
IPCC 3rd Assessment Report
Side-by-side comparison of the (left) original Mann et al (1999) “Hockey Stick” reconstruction as featured in the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC 3rd Assessment report (2001) and the (right) longer, sharper “Hockey Stick” as featured in the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC 6th Assessment report (2021).
Eight Hockey Sticks by New Scientist
The graphics below are focused on the northern hemisphere. The top graph shows the 2001 IPCC hockey stick curve with data from thermometers (in red). Below that graph are eight more hockey stick curves plus a red dotted line corresponding to the instrumental record. This was compiled for New Scientist by Rob Wilson of the University of Edinburgh, UK.
The top graph shows the 2001 IPCC version of the hockey stick curve stretching back 1,000 years. The error bars (in grey) show the 95% confidence range. The blue line is from tree rings, corals, ice cores and historical records. All curves correspond to the departures in temperatures in centigrade from the 1961 to the 1990 average.
The Hockey Stick Wars
I also wanted to add a few examples related to the propaganda wars against the first hockey stick graph and its author Dr. Michael Mann and climate science in general. If you haven’t followed this topic, I can add that it did get intense.
On April 23, 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to the University of Virginia (UVA). The CID demanded that UVA provide every email, record, or document it had related to Dr. Mann from his time there from 1999 to 2005. This resulted in a strong reaction from the scientific community.
On 2 March 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that Cuccinelli as Attorney General had no legal authority to demand the records from the university. Dr. Mann was also severely harassed and received chilling death threats against himself as well as his family, as documented in his book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”.
In February 2024, Michael Mann won a defamation lawsuit against conservative writers Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn (Mann v. Competitive Enterprise Institute). The jury awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages and $1 in compensatory damages. The lawsuit was over blog posts written by Simberg and Steyn that accused Mann of manipulating data in his famous “hockey stick” graph. It was not so much about questioning the science but rather about the fact that they intentionally tried to ruin his reputation using false information.
For example, they were comparing him to the infamous pedophile Jerry Sandusky. Jerry Sandusky was a football coach at Penn State University and Dr. Michael Mann is a distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State.
The goal of this blog is to create a list of what I call super facts. Super facts are important and true facts that are nevertheless highly surprising to many, disputed among the public, or unnecessarily misunderstood. They are special facts that we all can learn something important from. However, I also make posts that are not super facts but feature other interesting information, such as this book review and book recommendation.
The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm
David Bohm a close colleague of Albert Einstein was one of the most interesting theoretical physicists of the 20th century. This book “The Special Theory of Relativity” is one of the most interesting and thorough introductory books on the Special Theory of Relativity that I have come across. It is a series of lectures on the topic. It features algebra, equations, and a little bit of differentials but not too much.
You may want to have some math, physics and some relativity under your belt before you tackle this book. In my estimate it is written for those who have taken high school AP physics and AP algebra, maybe calculus as well, or one or two college level physics classes and math classes (or more). It is probably too basic for professional physicists, but it is not written for laymen. I bought the paperback version.
Hardback – Routledge; 1st edition (October 10, 1996), ISBN-10 : 0415148081, ISBN-13 : 978-0415148085, 256 pages, item weight : 13.6 ounces, dimensions : 5.75 x 0.75 x 9 inches. It is out of stock, and it costs $75.60 – $144.00 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Paperback – Publisher : Routledge; 1st edition (September 4, 2006), ASIN : 0415404258, ISBN-13 : 978-0415404259, 304 pages, item weight : 12 ounces, dimensions : 5.08 x 0.69 x 7.8 inches. It is out of stock, and it costs $12.36 – $17.21 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Kindle – Published : Routledge; 1st edition (September 29, 2015), ASIN : B009W3W6MG, 306 pages, it costs $10.10 – $13.77 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Front cover of the paperback version of The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the paperback version of the book.
Amazon’s Description of the Book
In these inspiring lectures David Bohm explores Albert Einstein’s celebrated Theory of Relativity that transformed forever the way we think about time and space. Yet for Bohm the implications of the theory were far more revolutionary both in scope and impact even than this. Stepping back from dense theoretical and scientific detail in this eye-opening work, Bohm describes how the notion of relativity strikes at the heart of our very conception of the universe, regardless of whether we are physicists or philosophers.
Note, I wrote this review in 2014, so it is relatively old, pun intended.
Lorentz Electrodynamics, Special Relativity, and our Perception of Reality
This book is a thorough and well written introduction to the “Special Theory of Relativity”. In addition to the basics of special relativity it covers the history of Special Relativity and it includes 60-pages of Lorentz Electrodynamics. The book also discusses Minkowski Diagrams, the Twin Paradox, relativistic Doppler effects, K-Calculus, and philosophy related to relativity. The book does not discuss General Relativity.
Bohm does not derive many formulas for electrodynamics, optics, quantum physics, thermodynamics, etc., and therefore this book does not resemble a textbook. Bohm’s focus is on a deeper understanding of the special theory of relativity itself, and on time and space.
He discusses perception of reality and includes discussions on child development, psychology and neurology related to perception, the meaning of the relational concepts in relativity, the structure of scientific revolutions (T.S. Kuhn), our perceptions of time and space, philosophy, and other related topics that cannot be classified as physics.
In K Calculus you draw the world lines of light pulses sent at constant intervals between different observers. Then you calculate what is essentially the Doppler factor K and uses it to explain what is going in relativity. In contrast the Lorentz transform is concerned with the space-time coordinates that you measure after taking into account that light have to travel a certain distance and that this takes time. Basically, the “actual time and space coordinates”.
K Calculus on the other hand is including both relativistic effects and the distance and time it takes for light to travel. K Calculus is thus not what you “measure” but what you “observe”. K Calculus makes it very easy to explain special relativity to an audience that is not strong in math and it also adds a new understanding to the special theory of relativity.
However, I see an inherent risk with K-Calculus in that it can end up fooling the student into believing that he understands relativity, for example, if a student incorrectly comes to believe that time dilation is some form of Doppler Effect.
Except for the fact that some of the mathematical derivations were unnecessarily complex I thought this book presented relativity lucidly, the philosophical discussions were insightful, and it added to my understanding of the topic. It should probably not be your first book on Special Relativity but it is a very good second book. I highly recommend it for those who want to think through the concepts of relativity a little deeper.
Back cover of the paperback version of The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the kindle version of the book.
We are all in our places with sunshiny faces ready to experience the astronomical event of the century, a spectacle that Mr. Sun, Sun, Golden Mr. Sun and the moon provided for us.
For us in Dallas, Texas, 2024 was the year when the sun and the moon put up an unforgettable spectacle for all of us to see. On April 8, 2024, the sun and the moon and earth lined up perfectly so that the moon fully covered the sun. We had a total solar eclipse, and we were lucky with the weather. I can add that experiencing a total solar eclipse is quite different from experiencing a partial or annular solar eclipse. I’ve experienced a partial solar eclipse as well and I can attest to the difference.
Unlike a partial eclipse, it gets dark during a total solar eclipse, the stars come out if the sky is clear like it was. The birds and the insects become quiet. It happens very suddenly, in just a few seconds. The total solar eclipse lasted four minutes.
The Motion of the Sun and the Moon
To understand what a solar eclipse is, the video below might help. What you see is the moon and the earth as seen from the sun’s viewpoint. We see earth all lit up by the sun, like a full moon, and we also see the moon lit up by the sun.
In this situation, when the people on earth look up in the sky, they see the sun, but they don’t see the moon, even though it is there. It is a new moon, or a black moon if it happens twice in the same month. As the moon begins to partially cover the sun the shadows on the ground start looking different and if you use solar eclipse glasses you can see the sun disappearing and looking like a bright crescent, but it is still daylight and looking at the sun without eclipse glasses would just hurt your eyes.
Well, this is true until the sun is fully covered by the moon. When that happens, the light turns off and at that point it is safe to look at the sun without glasses. What you’ll see is a pitch-black circle in the sky surrounded by wispy faint lights. Those wispy faint lights are the sun’s corona.
Below is a youTube video showing an animation composed of actual satellite photos by NASA.
Solar Eclipse Preparation
I drank a very special beer for the occasion, a Trappist Belgian Strong Ale, or Quadruple, called Westvleteren 12 from Brouwerij Westvleteren (Sint-Sixtusabdij van Westvleteren).
Our patio table. The little brown packages contain AAS / ISO certified solar eclipse glasses.Our daughter holding a Westvleteren 12 glass with a bow. Grandpa and grandma in the background.Rollo our mini-Australian Shepherd on the patio.
The Partial Eclipse Phase
It was partially cloudy during the partial eclipse, but we were able to get a good look at the eclipse as it progressed. As mentioned, to see the partial eclipse, you have to use good solar eclipse glasses. It is primarily for safety reasons, but it is also pointless to look at the sun during a partial eclipse. You won’t see the eclipse crescent because the powerful light from the sun overwhelms your view.
I had a little filter that was placed in front of my phone camera as I took a few pictures. Admittedly they were pretty bad. I have an old Samsung Galaxy S8+ but even using newer phones it is difficult to get decent photos of something like this.
Partial eclipse photo taken with my old Samsung Galaxy phone and a filter.
The Total Eclipse
At 1:40PM Dallas time the total solar eclipse happened and luckily it was not covered by clouds. At this point it suddenly got dark and it was safe to look straight at the sun without using the eclipse glasses. The total eclipse lasted four minutes. I have included a shutter stock photo below which closely represents what we actually saw. We saw a black circle and around the black circle was a wispy white fog like light. This was the sun’s corona and it shone with about the same power as the full moon. It kind of looked like a black hole.
Except for the black background this looks like what we saw with our eyes. The sky we had was dark, like twilight, but not black. Solar Eclipse Stock Photo ID: 2344355767 by aeonWAVE
The Stars and the Planet Venus
Total solar eclipse photo that my daughter took. Can you find Venus?
Total Eclipse Photos
These eight pictures were taken with cell phones by my daughter Rachel, Denise Mosier-Wanken, and Margaret Weiss Bloebaum.
Today, December 30, 2024, we are having what is called a Black Moon. In Europe it will be December 31. This is not a super-fact post. Just some lighthearted information about the Black Moon phenomenon.
What is a Black Moon?
The most common definition is that it is the second new moon in a single calendar month. That’s what we are having now. During a new moon the moon is located between the sun and earth, which means that the night side of the moon is directed towards us. At night it is usually below the horizon and during the day you can’t see it.
However, there is one exception to that and that is when you are having a solar eclipse. In that case the moon is directly in front of the sun. It is an unusually well-placed new moon if you will. Here in Dallas, we had a total solar eclipse on April 8 this year. It was a remarkable experience. It turned daker, cooler, some stars and planets came out, including Venus, and the birds and insects stopped singing. I have included some photos from that event below. What you see is the dark side of the moon with the sun hiding behind it.
I took this photo with my old Samsung 8+ phone before we had totality. Since the sun was still partially visible and bright I used a filter / a pair of glasses that I held in front of the phone.A friend Denise Mosier-Wanken took this photo with her phone. The sun is almost gone. The fuzzy fog like light around the black circle is the sun’s corona.My daughter Rachel took this photo with her iPhone.A professional solar eclipse photo with filter. What we saw with our eyes was something in between this photo and the photos we took. The corona in our photos is too big. This one is too small. Stock Photo ID: 2344355767 by aeonWAVE.
Alternative Definitions of a Black Moon
As mentioned, the most common definition of a black moon is that it is the second new moon in a single calendar month. However, there are other definitions:
A month with no full moon
A month with no new moon
The third new moon in a season with four new moons. A season is defined as the period between a solstice and an equinox and is roughly three months.
A New Moon is a Star Gazing Opportunity
Since there is no moon in the sky the night is a little bit darker. This makes a significant difference in places that are very dark and very far away from city lights. There is so much light pollution here in Dallas, so it doesn’t matter here. However, I still took out my little telescope and observed easy objects, such as Venus, Mars, Jupiter and its four Galilean moons.
The three little dots are three of the four Galilean Moons. I roughly saw this in my telescope a couple of hours ago, but it is not my photo. Photo by Raoni Aldrich Dorim on Pexels.com
The Near Side and the Far Side of the Moon
The moon is always showing us the same side, the so-called near side. The far side, or the back side, you can only see from spacecrafts. Look at the photo below. The near side is on the left whilst the far side is on the right. During a new moon the near side (left) is dark, and the far side (right) is lit up by the sun. But again, you cannot see the far side (right), which is turned away from us.
During a full moon the near side (left) is lit up by the sun, and the far side (right) is dark. One interesting fact about the moon is that the near side (left) and the far side (right) are very different. The far side (right) not only looks different, it has a crust that is much thicker compared to the near side, and it is also densely cratered compared to the near side.
The near side of the Moon and the far side of the Moon. Comparison between the two hemispheres of the Moon. Elements of this image were furnished by NASA. Stock Photo ID: 2157518223 by Claudio Caridi.
Below is a youTube video showing an animation composed of actual satellite photos by NASA.
In this video the near side of the moon is dark. It is a new moon and the people on earth don’t see the moon. The sun is behind us and lights up both earth and the far side of the moon (the side people on earth do not see), so that is what the space craft see.
Happy New Year
Finally, a Happy New Year to all of you from Rollo and me. He may not look that happy but that is because I am leaving over the New Years. We have a dog sitter though. For the same reason I will not be on-line tomorrow.
Superfact 25: Global warming is happening. Or if you call it Climate Change or Climate Disruption is happening. And it is happening very fast. We also know that it is caused by us primarily as a result of our burning of fossil fuels. There is a long-standing scientific consensus on these two facts because the evidence is conclusive. Check the evidence below.
This is a long post. However, I summarized this somewhat complex issue in a post I hope is both comprehensive and easy to read at the same time. I believe you can learn a lot from reading it. Note in this post I will use the terms climate change, climate disruption and global warming interchangeably, or nearly interchangeably. I am doing that on purpose because some attribute a false meaning to the fact that people use different labels for this phenomenon.
A lot of people would like to dispute this fact. Including large segments of the public, politicians, and political organizations. I was once a so-called skeptic myself. However, climate scientists very rarely dispute this because of the large amount of compelling evidence. This is a good summary from NASA. We know it’s true, it is important, yet disputed, which makes it a super fact in my opinion.
Below I created a top 10 list of evidence for the fact that climate change / global warming is happening. As well as a top 10 list of evidence for the fact that we are the cause for it. Primarily because of our burning of fossil fuels.
Evidence that Global Warning is Happening
(1) The temperature records collected by numerous organizations show that global warming is happening. Organizations such as NASA, NOAA, the Hadley Centre, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, the World Meteorological Organization, and many more, use data from land-based weather stations, ocean buoys, satellite measurements, and other sources to monitor Earth’s climate. Comparison with the palaeoclimatological record shows that the rise in average global temperatures is extremely fast. This is the smoking gun. However, for those who question the data from all of these organizations there are other simpler types of evidence (see below).
(2) Global sea levels has increased by 20–25 cm (8–10 in) since 1900, with half of that increase occurring since 1980. Sea level rise occurs from a combination of thermal expansion and the melting of land ice, both which happen as a result of warming. This sea level rise has been the fastest in “at least the last 3000 years”.
(5) The Antarctic ice sheet is losing ice at a rate of about 100–200 billion tons per year, which has increased in the past two decades.
(6) Eco zones are generally shifting northward and to higher elevations, meaning that plant and animal habitats are moving towards cooler regions as temperatures rise in previously suitable areas.
(8) Extreme events are increasing in frequency showing that climate is changing
(9) After extensive research and scientific debates in the past there is now a long-standing scientific consensus that Global Warming is happening. This is not physical evidence, but it is a rational point. Take notice that it does not appeal to the authority fallacy. Think about it in terms of probability. How likely is it that after tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles, scientific investigations and discussions amongst thousands of top scientists from all over the world, over a period of several decades, the emerging consensus is wrong?
(10) Old guys originating from northern climates like me, have noticed that the seasons are changing. Even if you dismiss all the evidence from NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and all the world’s meteorological institutions, and you claim that all the world’s climate scientists are all in a massive conspiracy, you cannot convince me of something that is contrary to what I can see with my own eyes.
Below is short 3 minute video from NASA that addresses this topic and answer questions.
Graphs and Videos Showing Global Warming
This map from NOAA shows the percentage of warming over the 20th century average for the year 2025. This is a bit more recent than the video above. This map is taken from this article.
To see the NASA web page from where the YouTube video of the shrinking arctic ice is taken click here .Temperature anomaly graphs from NASA, Hedley Center, Japan Meteorological Agency, NOAA, and Berkley. Wikimedia commons << https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en>>.The so-called hockey stick curve depicting the last 1,000 years. The blue line is the first hockey stick curve ever created (by Michael Mann). He used proxy measurements such as tree rings, green-dots 30-year average, red temperature measurements. Wikimedia commons <<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en>>. This graph is taken from this pageTemperature record for the last 150,000 years. Notice the sharp uptick towards the end. This picture is taken from this article.
Confusion About Climate Change
Before continuing I would like to address a couple of issues that sometimes trip up people. And prevent them from learning about this topic.
The question “climate has always been changing, why would we be the cause now?”, is a good question if asked honestly. However, it is a bad question if it is asked like a gotcha or a dismissive statement, because the paleoclimatologists and the climate scientists, in other words the experts on past climate, are the ones telling us that the current climate change / global warming is caused by us, it is not “natural”. They tell us that because they know something that the dismissive laymen don’t know. It only takes a tiny bit of reflection to realize that maybe the paleoclimatologists and the climate scientists have got something to tell us.
Sometimes you come across people who have a hangup over the fact that we use a few different terms interchangeably, global warming, climate change, climate disruption, inadvertent climate modification, etc. The people who have a hangup about this jump to the incorrect conclusion that there is some sort of deception or backtrack going on. If I talk about my dog and my mini-Australian Shepherd, I am not confused or deceptive or backtracking anything. It is the same family member. Whether you call it global warming or climate change or something else is a distracting non-issue, a red herring if you will.
To add some information about it. Climate change has become the more popular term recently, but the terms climate change and inadvertent climate modification predates the term global warming, which became popular in the 1980’s largely because climate scientist James Hansen likes to use it. Climate change is a broader term since it could include global warming and global cooling, but in the current context, global warming is a good term as well since that is what is happening now.
One advantage of the term climate change is that the average warming trend is in itself not the major issue. The effects on the overall climate that warming has is the more important issue. You could say that you want some global warming when the weather is cold and it would make sense. But you don’t want the destruction of eco systems, oceanic and atmospheric circulation changes, sea level rise, worse storms, draughts, floods, wildfires, etc., that it causes.
Natural Causes of Climate Change
The fact that natural climate change occurred in the past does not mean that the current warming is natural. Many people say, “but the planet has warmed naturally before” as if that automatically means that our current warming is natural, but nothing could be further from the truth. This is an excellent overview to why we know that global warming (the current) is not natural.
There are many different kinds of natural causes of climate change. Two billion years ago cyanobacteria developed a form of photosynthesis that absorbed carbon dioxide and emitted oxygen, as well as a way of extracting nitrogen using a process called nitrogen fixation. This made cyanobacteria extremely successful. One consequence of this was that the carbon dioxide was largely removed from the atmosphere, and the earth got very cold, but the oxygen that was now present in the atmosphere paved the way for the existence of multicellular life and animals. To find out more about this, read this book.
The planet changed but it took millions of years. The emergence of land plants did something similar. Examples of other slow-moving drivers of climate change are continental drift and the fact that the light from the sun has gotten 6% stronger over the last one billion years (0.006% per million years).
Cyanobacteria caused a global cooling two billion years ago while paving the way for the existence of multicellular life and animals. Stock Photo ID: 2197045895 by Andre Engelhardt.
65 million years ago an asteroid struck earth, which caused earth’s climate to change, which is probably what killed the non-avian dinosaurs. Another example of a past climate change driver is unusual volcanic activity. Volcanoes emit greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water vapor, during eruptions.
However, their contribution to the total CO₂ emissions in modern times is very small compared to human activities. Annual volcanic CO₂ emissions are estimated to be around 200-500 million tons while humans add 37-40 billion tons, or 100 times as much. Therefore, it is unlikely that volcanoes contribute much to the current warming, but the fine sulfate aerosols emitted by volcanoes can cause a significant cooling effect for a few years.
Dinosaur and asteroids during extinction day Stock Illustration ID: 1438260563 by serpebluVolcano – An active volcano that erupts lava. Stock Illustration ID: 2497156167 by MERT1995
One type of important type of climate forcing that’s been the cause behind the multiple ice ages that we’ve had over the last two million years are earth’s orbital cycles, or the Milankovitch cycles. There are three of them, orbital eccentricity, change in axial tilt, and axial precession. Could they explain the current warming? No, they can’t because we are currently in a cycle that should be cooling the planet. And it was until now. Below I have included a video from PBS that explains these orbital cycles.
Illustration of Milankovitch cycles from MIT’s Climate Primer.<< Link-22>>.
From PBS explanation and overview of earth’s three orbital cycles.
There are also short-term solar irradiance cycles. There is an 11-year cycle and an 80-year cycle, but these correspond to small changes. The 11-year cycle corresponds to a temperature change of 0.05 degrees Celsius.
In addition, the Sun’s irradiance has been slightly decreasing over the past few decades. Changes in the sun’s irradiance cannot explain the sharp warming we are witnessing. As you’ve seen above, neither can volcanic activity nor any known orbital cycles, slow moving climate drivers such as continental drift cannot explain it and we did not get hit by an asteroid recently. However, what fits the bill almost perfectly is our greenhouse gas emissions.
Unlike weather, the climate is not particularly sensitive to initial conditions (chaos). For example, we can be pretty certain that July will be warmer than January in Minnesota. We use climate models to try to predict future climate. All climate models rely on the laws of thermodynamics. But they vary in regard to the different understandings of the best ways to incorporate those laws in a representation of all of Earth. They do not come up with identical results. But they all get the average temperature of each region of the world right.
In addition, the various old climate models from the 1990’s do a very good job of what has happened during the last 30 years. They aren’t perfect but they are useful and more importantly for our context they serve as powerful evidence that the current warming is caused by our emissions. You remove our emissions from the models and none of what we measure will happen. Climate models are therefore the smoking gun with respect to what is causing global warming, just like the temperature record is for the fact that it is happening in the first place.
Unfortunately, the climate models have been maligned and misrepresented by those who wish that the public do not pay attention to them. That’s why we need to mention additional types of evidence (see below).
Evidence that Global Warming is Caused by US
(1) Climate models – as we have seen above, climate models are the smoking gun evidence that we humans are causing global warming / climate change. In addition, both simplistic and complex climate models show that 100% of global warming is caused by humans.
(2) Satellites directly measuring our greenhouse gases trapping heat – A second smoking gun is the evidence from satellites having directly measured our greenhouse gases trapping heat and causing global warming by reducing outgoing longwave radiation. This isn’t a “theory” or a “model.” It is a direct measurement of our emissions, warming the planet just like scientists predicted. Click here for more detailed information.
(4) The upper troposphere is cooling, which shows that the heating is from greenhouse gases and not the sun or orbital cycles. To understand how the lower atmosphere is warming while the upper is cooling, think of the greenhouse gases as a blanket.
(5) winters and nights are generally warming faster than other seasons and times of day due to the increased presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which trap heat more effectively during colder periods. This is considered a key indicator of human-induced climate change.
(6) The speed of the warming, 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, or 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade, is extremely fast. Known natural climate forcing tends to be slower.
(7) Human activities is the only known explanation for the current global warming. One way that we know that the current warming is caused by human activity is because we are currently in a cycle that should be cooling the planet. The same is true for the sun’s irradiance. It is not volcanoes or any other known cause. See the section above called “Natural Causes of Climate Change”.
(8) Isotope studies show that the origin of the greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere are from burning fossil fuels. This is referred to as the isotopic footprint.
(9) The observed temperature rise mirrors industrialization.
(10) More than 90% of excess heat from global warming is absorbed by the oceans, causing significant increases in ocean temperatures. Oceans absorb about a quarter of human CO₂ emissions, leading to lower pH levels. This is unprecedented in at least 26,000 years and is directly linked to anthropogenic CO₂. These effects have been carefully studied and observed.
Also let’s not forget that nearly all activelypublishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change. Take notice that it does not appeal to the authority fallacy. Think about it in terms of probability. How likely is it that after tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles, scientific investigations and discussions amongst thousands of top scientists from all over the world, over a period of several decades, the emerging consensus is wrong?.
This is a short one-minute overview of the causes behind global warming that is happening.
This video from NASA is a bit longer, 13 minutes. Click here to see the page this is coming fromNatural causes for global warming / climate change would have cooled the planet, not warm it. Click here to visit this NASA web page regarding the causes behind global warming.<<Link-31>>The carbon dioxide concentration measurements began in 1958 at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii. Since then, several other ways of measuring carbon dioxide concentration have been added.From Scripps institute. Keep two things in mind. First the warming from CO2 is delayed and may result in positive feedback that can manifest decades and centuries later. Secondly, human civilization developed during a period of stable climate. That CO2 levels and temperatures were higher millions of years ago is not much comfort.Going back 800,000 years. From Scripps institute.
Six Silly but Common Arguments Against Climate Change
Silly Argument
Response
It’s not a problem because CO2 is good for plants.
Yes, plants need CO2, but that no way compensates for the increased heat waves, droughts, floods, storm intensity, etc. This is like saying floods aren’t a problem because fish like water.
CO2 is a tiny portion of the atmosphere.
That tiny portion is the difference between our planet and an ice planet. See this super fact “Without carbon dioxide the Earth would freeze“. Small doesn’t mean unimportant, and we are approaching a doubling of CO2.
Volcanoes emit more CO2 than we do.
No, they freaking don’t. Please fact check before repeating this nonsense.
We just had a big snowstorm, so much for global warming. (remember Senator Snowball from Oklahoma?)
No one ever said there won’t be large winter storms. We are talking about the average climate, not individual weather events.
Climate has changed in the past, who caused that, dinosaurs?
Just because the climate has changed naturally before doesn’t mean the current warming is natural. We have fact checked natural drivers of climate change, none of them can explain the current warming (also see the information above).
“Global Warming” wasn’t happening, so they changed the name to “climate change”.
The first “Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE” report was in 1990. It has always been about climate change. Also, the globe is, in fact, warming.
A Global Warming protest. It’s their future. Stock Photo ID: 1427361263 by manpeppe