By Girma Orssengo, PhD
In his Caltech commencement address in 1974, Professor Richard Feynman advised students the following:
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.” [1]
Using the global mean temperature (GMT) data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), in its Fourth Assessment Report of 2007, reported to the world “accelerated warming” of the globe. [2]
Identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is extremely crucial because the IPCC claims this accelerated warming is caused by CO2 emission from human use of fossil fuels. As a result, use of fossil fuels that has protected the naked animal from the freezing winter, sweltering summer, backbreaking drudgery, or in general allowed the naked animal to live life as a human is now being blamed for warming the planet. Most governments have made the extremely bizarre declaration that the CO2 you exhale, plants inhale, and forest fires and volcanoes naturally release is a pollutant, and they are putting a price on it.
The accelerated warming claim by the IPCC is accepted by most of the world’s scientific institutions, governments and media.
In this article, following Feynman’s advice, an alternative interpretation of the same GMT data is provided that throws doubt on the accelerated warming interpretation of the IPCC.
This alternative interpretation was also used to estimate the GMT trend for the next two decades, which shows global cooling from the GMT peak value of about 0.45 deg C for the 2000s to 0.13 deg C by the 2030s.
IPCC’s Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data
The accelerated warming interpretation of the GMT data by the IPCC is shown in Figure 1, and the caption for the graph states:
“Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming.” [2]
IPCC also states:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level” [3]
In this article, an alternative interpretation to IPCC’s for the same GMT data is given. This alternative interpretation demonstrates that the current 30-years warming is just a warming phase of a 60-years cooling and warming cycle. As a result, we should not panic with “widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level” because that is what happens during the warming phase of the globe, and the snow and ice will form again during the cooling phase of the globe in the next two decades.
The conclusion of this article is similar to that made by NASA when science used to be only about the truth:
“…in the early 1970’s, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now in a global warming phase.” [4]
Alternative Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data
For the alternative interpretation of the GMT, the same data used by the IPCC from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was used, and it was assumed to be valid.
In an interview by Roger Harrabin of the BBC [5], Professor Phil Jones stated: “Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage”. As a result, the GMT data before 1880 were excluded in this article.
To produce the alternative interpretation of the GMT data, the following points were addressed:
-
Does a line or a curve passes through all the GMT peaks?
-
Does a line or a curve passes through all the GMT valleys?
-
Do the lines or curves that pass through the GMT peaks and GMT valleys converge, parallel or diverge?
-
How does the slope of the global warming trend line for the whole data compare to the slopes of the lines or curves that pass through the GMT peaks and valleys?
All the above questions are answered in a single graph shown in Figure 2.
In Figure 2, the GMT was at its peak in the 1880s, 1940s and 2000s, and a single straight line (not a curve) passes through these GMT peaks, indicating no acceleration of GMT peak values with increasing years. The line that passes through the GMT peaks is labeled as Upper GMT boundary line.
In Figure 2, a single straight line (not a curve) passes through the GMT valleys, indicating no acceleration of GMT valley values with increasing years. The line that passes through the GMT valleys is labeled as Lower GMT boundary line.
Figure 2 also shows that the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel (not diverging), indicating no change in the GMT swing between the two boundary lines with increasing years. The magnitude of this constant vertical swing is about 0.5 deg C for the last 130 years.
Finally, Figure 2 shows that the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel to the long-term global warming trend line for the whole data from 1880 to 2010, which has a global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade.
The most important observation in this article is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. It was also found that the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position. As a pendulum with a constant swing does not have a “tipping point”, the claim of a climate tipping point is a science fiction, made by those who unfortunately make their living by scare mongering.
Here is a question to climate scientists: In Figure 2, why has the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years?
In Figure 2, although the upper GMT boundary curve is a straight line for the relatively short 130 years data, in a longer time scale, it is part of a very long curve that contains the Little Ice Age, Medieval Climatic Optimum, Holocene Maximum, etc.
Relationship Between Global Mean Temperature Peak And Valley Values
In Figure 2, in order to find the relationship between the 1880s peak and the 1910s valley values, instead of considering the complex path the annual GMT took between the two points, a simplified but equivalent path of an instantaneous global cooling swing of -0.5 deg C followed by a steady warming of 0.06 deg C per decade for 30-years along the lower GMT boundary line was considered. As a result, in the 30-years cooling period from 1880 to 1910, the change in GMT = -0.5 + 0.06 x 3 = -0.32 deg C. Therefore, the GMT valley value for the 1910s may be estimated from the GMT peak value of –0.27 deg C for the 1880s as:
GMT valley value for the 1910s = GMT peak value for the 1880s – 0.32 = -0.27 – 0.32 = -0.59 deg C
This value is shown as (1910, -0.59) in Figure 2.
Similarly, in Figure 2, in order to find the relationship between the 1910s valley and the 1940s peak values, instead of considering the complex path the annual GMT took between the two points, a simplified but equivalent path of an instantaneous global warming swing of +0.5 deg C followed by a steady warming of 0.06 deg C per decade for 30-years along the upper GMT boundary line was considered. As a result, in the 30-years warming period from 1910 to 1940, the change in GMT = 0.5 + 0.06 x 3 = +0.68 deg C. Therefore, the GMT peak value for the 1940s may be estimated from the GMT valley value of –0.59 deg C for the 1910s as:
GMT peak value for the 1940s = GMT valley value for the 1910s + 0.68 = -0.59 + 0.68 = +0.09 deg C
This value is shown as (1940, 0.09) in Figure 2.
Note that the above relationships (decrease in GMT by 0.32 deg C during the global cooling phase and increase by 0.68 deg C during the global warming phase) were established based on the data before mid-20th century, before exponential increase in human emission of CO2. Next, these relationships are used to estimate the GMT peak and valley values after mid-20th century.
GMT valley value for the 1970s = GMT peak value for the 1940s – 0.32 = 0.09 – 0.32 = -0.23 deg C
This value is shown as (1970, -0.23) in Figure 2.
GMT peak value for the 2000s = GMT valley value for the 1970s + 0.68 = -0.23 + 0.68 = +0.45 deg C
This value is shown as (2000, 0.45) in Figure 2.
As shown in Figure 2, there is excellent agreement between the above estimates and the observed GMT peak and valley values. The same relationships were used to estimate GMT peak and valley values before and after mid-20th century, and this shows that there is no evidence of accelerated warming in the GMT data. The challenge to climate science is to explain why the GMT peak and valley values are related by such simple linear relationships.
Further, as the above relationships were valid for the last 130 years, it is reasonable to assume they will also be valid at least for the next 20 years. Therefore, the GMT prediction for the 2030s valley value is as follows:
GMT valley value for the 2030s = GMT peak value for the 2000s – 0.32 = 0.45 – 0.32 = +0.13 deg C
In summary, as shown by the data in Figure 2, the GMT has a cycle that consists of 30 years cooling by 0.32 deg C followed by 30 years warming by 0.68 deg C. The magnitude of the warming is greater than the cooling because the warming of +0.18 deg C (=0.06 deg C/ decade x 3 decade) every 30 years modifies the cyclic cooling and warming swing of 0.5 deg C, by decreasing the magnitude of the cyclic cooling but increasing that of the warming by 0.18 deg C.
Cherry Picking
Anthropogenic global warming advocates always accuse skeptics of cherry picking. A working definition of a cherry picker is one who makes conclusions based on comparison of oranges to apples. Let us see who is the greatest cherry picker.
Regarding the GMT, an example of comparing oranges to oranges is to compare one global warming phase of a given duration with another global warming phase of the same duration.
A valid example of identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is to compare the change in GMT during the recent warming period from 1970 to 2000 with the previous warming period from 1910 to 1940, which are of the same duration. As shown in Figure 2, for both periods the change in GMT is about 0.68 deg C. As a result, there is no acceleration in the recent warming period compared to the previous one.
Another valid example of identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is to compare the change in GMT during the recent cooling-followed-by-warming period from 1940 to 2000 with the previous cooling-followed-by-warming period from 1880 to 1940, which are of the same duration. As shown in Figure 2, for both periods the change in GMT is about 0.36 deg C. As a result, there is no acceleration in the recent cooling-followed-by-warming period compared to the previous one.
In summary, the GMT data for the last 130 years does not show any evidence of accelerated warming due to human emission of CO2. This is because the cyclic cooling & warming swing of 0.5 deg C shown in Figure 2 is obviously natural; and the persistent global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade is also natural, because it existed before mid-20th century, before widespread use of fossil fuels, as it is this warming that caused the 1940s GMT peak value to be greater than that of the 1880s by 0.36 deg C (=0.06 deg C/decade x 6 decade). Interestingly, the GMT peak value for the 2000s is also greater than that of the 1940s by the same 0.36 deg C.
In the ClimateGate emails, there are statements confirming these GMT peaks for the 1880s and 1940s:
“Indeed, in the verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all.” [7]
“Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.” [8]
The “accelerated warming” interpretation by the IPCC shown in Figure 1 was based on the comparison of the global warming rate of the recent warming period with the global warming rates of longer periods that consist of this warming period and previous cooling-followed-by-warming periods. As the global warming rate for the current warming period is necessarily always greater than those of all the other longer periods with greater denominators, the IPCC was comparing oranges to apples.
As a result, the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC is the greatest cherry picker.
Unfortunately, the unsubstantiated IPCC’s accelerated warming claim is supported by almost all of the world’s scientific institutions, governments and media.
Shame on the 21st century’s scientific establishment for letting the IPCC and its supporters successfully convince the world of anthropogenic global warming, the biggest scary story of our life time, without any evidence of accelerated warming due to human emission of CO2.
What Would Have Indicated Accelerated Warming In The GMT Data?
In Figure 2 a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary line had been a curve with an increasing positive slope with increasing years, or the upper and lower GMT boundary lines had been diverging with increasing years.
Fortunately, as the data in Figure 2 shows, the upper GMT boundary line is a straight line having, interestingly, the same global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as the global warming trend line for the whole data. Also, the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel, showing no change in the magnitude of the GMT swing with increasing years. As a result, the vertical cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C between the two GMT boundary lines is cyclic and is therefore natural.
However, there is evidence of a persistent but natural global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade.
What Future Observation Will Confirm Anthropogenic Global Warming?
In its Fourth Assessment Report, The Physical Science Basis, the IPCC stated:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.” [9]
A GMT increase in the next two decades of 0.2 deg C per decade as projected by the IPCC, as shown in Figure 3, to a value of about +1.0 deg C by the 2030s, means that the GMT will stop to behave like a stable pendulum, and the magnitude of its swing will start to increase from its constant value of 0.5 deg C for the last 130 years. This also means that the slope of the upper GMT boundary line will increase from its constant value of 0.06 to 0.2 deg C per decade. If this happens, the climate will have shifted and we skeptics should accept anthropogenic global warming.
However, as shown by the data in Figure 2, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.
What the IPCC’s projection of 0.2 deg C per decade warming in the next two decades means is that in a pendulum demonstration by Feynman shown in Figure 4, if he pulls the pendulum away from its vertical neutral position and releases it starting just in front of his body (representing the 1880s GMT peak), the pendulum will return to its initial position in front of his body and reverses its direction and swings away from him, as the GMT did after the 1940s peak. However, when the pendulum approaches him the second time (representing the 2000s GMT peak), its swing will suddenly increase and hit our hero.
That is farfetched. After the two previous peaks of the 1880s and 1940s, the GMT returned to its neutral position and moved towards its lower boundary line before the warming phase restarted. This pattern should repeat after the 2000s GMT peak, because the upper GMT boundary line has never been crossed for long, as shown in Figure 2, for the last 130 years.
What Future Observation Will Disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming?
In the next two decades, if the GMT swings from its current peak towards its neutral position and then reaches the lower GMT boundary line to a value of about +0.13 deg C in the 2030s as shown in Figure 3, the whole world will agree with the late Professor Harold Lewis’s characterization of anthropogenic global warming:
“It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” [11]
In my case, I will replace the word “physicist” with “engineer”.
References
[1] Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feynman
[2] IPCC: “Accelerated Warming”
[3] IPCC: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
[4] NASA Facts, Global Warming, NF-222
[5] BBC News, Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
[6] An alternative Interpretation of GMT Data (hadcrut3vgl.txt)
[7] Climategate email regarding the 1880s GMT peak
[8] Climategate email regarding the 1940s GMT peak
[9] Projections of Future Changes in Climate in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report
[10] Richard P. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces
[11] Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
===============================================================
Girma Orssengo
Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, University of Calicut, Calicut, India
Master of Applied Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Doctor of Philosophy, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
===============================================================
Bart says:
August 21, 2011 at 11:16 pm
“blah blah blah”
Of course correlation isn’t causation. But it’s still correlation and demands an explanation. I gave you an explanation. You failed to provide any alternative explanation which could be assessed to see if it better fits the facts. I mean to say sure, there are other explanations. Maybe it’s propaganda in support of invasion plan by little green men from Mars who want to weaken our economic and industrial resources before the mothership arrives. The point is that without you being specific in an explanation no one can determine whether yours is superior. Science is about arriving at the best explanation for natural phenonema. When multiple explanations exist we rely on tried and true tools like Occam’s Razor to determine which is most likely. So give me an equally or more simple explanation to explain the correlation between exponential human population growth, exponential growth of fossil fuel combustion, growing amount of atmospheric CO2, and exponential decline in LWIR absorptive capacity with rising atmospheric concentration. I wish you luck but you’re going to need more than just luck.
R Gates,
“The forcing from anthropogenic CO2 and related feedbacks is far more potent then the relatively minor forcing that may have initiated the LIA.”
What was the forcing that initiated the LIA? Sure you must have it well quantified in order to know its potency as compared to anthropogenic CO2, right?
Interglacial periods have a life expectancy around 10,000 years. The current interglacial is 11,500 years old. That’s the climatology.
Forcings don’t really play a role although a major volcanic eruption could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back when other factors are lined up. When orbital precession lines up the closest approach to the sun in the northern hemisphere winter and at the same time axial precession is at the point of least tilt is when conditions are set up. This causes the difference between summer and winter average temperature to decline. See, you only need below 32F for snow to accumulate. A colder winter doesn’t cause more snow to accumulate so temperatures much below 32F is overkill for snow accumulation. But with summer temperatures every degree over 32F increases the melt rate. So warmer winters and cooler summers is what gives ice and snow the advantage.
Currently the earth’s closest approach to the sun is in the beginning of January which is just a few weeks from the precise middle of NH winter. So at this point in orbital precession we have about 1% more NH insolation in near the middle of winter and 1% less near the middle of summer. Note that this IS NOT a change in “forcing” but rather just a change in the seasonal distribution of the same annual average forcing. Axial tilt is currently 23.4 degrees and the extremes are 22.1 and 24.5. The tilt is declining. Less tilt causes less seasonal temperature variation. The conditions are ripe for an end to the Holocene interglacial, climatology predicts it soon, and the conditions for ice gaining the advantage are improving as axial tilt continues to decline and orbital precession comes closer and closer to the precise middle of NH winter.
Now, show me using rigorous data and calculations how the forcing from anthropogenic CO2 is sufficient to stave off the climatological end of the Holocene interglacial and further, given that the glacial triggers will continue growing stronger for the next few thousand years, how can we sustain anthropogenic global warming long enough to get over the hump to the side where every year lessens the strength of the triggers instead of increasing them.
So you see, the way I see it, any major volcanic event that lowers the earth’s average temperature for a few years could be the trigger that ends the current interglacial period. If anthropogenic warming ups the temperature I consider that be an increased margin of safety against the day when a major volcanic eruption occurs. In the meantime increased CO2 appears to have the decidely beneficial effect of lengthening growing seasons in higher northern latitudes that need longer growing seasons, it increases the rate of plant growth throughout the growing season, and decreases the fresh water requirements per unit of plant growth. Trying to limit CO2 emission is insane for anyone armed with all the facts.
Dave Springer says:
August 22, 2011 at 8:29 am
“Science is about arriving at the best explanation for natural phenonema.”
No. Science is about arriving at rational explanations for causal mechanisms. It may involve proposing hypotheses which have not yet been proven, but those hypotheses do not have the force of established fact.
“I gave you an explanation.”
You gave me a narrative. Science does not grade on a curve. Whether other explanations exist or are more plausible or not, yours does not get a passing grade unless it
answers all the questions.
“…exponential human population growth…”
It isn’t growing exponentially. This can be established by a cursory look at your plot.
“…exponential growth of fossil fuel combustion…”
It isn’t growing exponentially. Get the data and plot it and its differentials. And, remember that the derivative of an exponential function is an exponential function.
“…growing amount of atmospheric CO2…”
Temperatures have been rising. CO2 concentration is positively correlated with temperature. CO2 is also stored in a large variety of reservoirs, and can be exchanged over long time scales.
“…exponential decline in LWIR absorptive capacity with rising atmospheric concentration.”
This one is based on valid, closed-loop experiments. But, so what? CO2 absorption is merely a part of the overall planetary temperature regulation system. A robust regulatory system, which I propose the Earth’s temperature regulation system is, will slough off such perturbations inversely proportional to the feedback gain. The overall effect can be very small, or even nil if there are integrating elements within the loop.
I could give you more in-depth explanations, but you wouldn’t understand them. A little knowledge, such as you have, can be a dangerous thing – like a teenager first coming to grips with the larger world, it makes you think you know everything. When you have gathered enough experience, you realize how much there really is to know, and you become more cautious about proclaiming omniscience. I would say more, but I don’t want this to devolve into a sneering competition such as you had with Mr. Green. I will just end with, keep your eyes open, and watch what happens.
Disputing a modest amount of global warming caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions is SO like Scientific Creationism arguments trying to dispute the age of the earth.
In both cases there are multiple independent lines of evidence supporting the generally accepted cases. In each instance there are unlikely but possible alternative explanations for each line of evidence. So the Scientific Creationist must present possible but unlikely explanations for why the earth could be only 10,000 years old and make different arguments for many independent lines of evidence. Typical explanations include the speed of light not being constant, huge global castrophes that vastly increase sedimentation rates, radically changing rate of continental drift, and so forth. Each counter argument is possible but unlikely. The kicker is that each time you have to add another unlikely explanation it has a multiplicative effect making the all the counter-arguments being true exponentially less and less likely. It’s the same way with anthropogenic global warming. You to impeach multiple independant lines of evidence and each additional impeachment that becomes necessary makes the argument as a whole greatly decline in credibility. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The simplest explanation for all the lines of evidence that say the earth is 4 billion years old is that earth is indeed 4 billion years old. The simplest explananation for why the independent lines of evidence that CO2 doublings cause a 1.0C degree in surface temperatures is because a CO2 doublings do indeed cause a 1.0C rise in surface temperature. Other explanations are highly contrived and hideously complex ranging from unlikely mistakes in theoretical physics to data tampering to mistakes in ice core proxies and bad balloon soundings and satellite records and urban heat islands and so forth. Far too many impeachements are required for the total argument to remain plausible. Friar William of Occam is spinning in his grave.
Dave Springer says:
August 22, 2011 at 9:43 am
Disputing a modest amount of global warming caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions is SO like Scientific Creationism arguments trying to dispute the age of the earth.
I agree, but then I believe that most thinking “skeptics” accept this. Having wrested the tiller away from the IPCC and their activist scientific team after Climategate, the CO2 affect on warming has been declining down to its probable real level. A series of independent observations and calculations seem to have put the doubling down to around half your 1C figure – but it could rebound to halfway in between to 0.7 or so. How many more doublngs are likely? maybe 1 more and then economics will likely favour alternative fuels anyway. For some reason, activists believe we have to drastically rearrange society to solve such problems. Cold-hearted economics will continue to do the trick.
Dave Springer says:
August 22, 2011 at 9:43 am
“Disputing a modest amount of global warming caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions is SO like Scientific Creationism arguments trying to dispute the age of the earth.”
Today, we dine on red herring. Afterwards, guests may relieve the stress of their overburdened bellies by visiting the vomitorium to indulge themselves in the always fashionable emetic, repetition ad nauseum.
Girma,
Thank you for your very clear and timely article. It will be useful in my enjoyable ongoing face-to-face discourse with my associates on dissecting the cause of the failure of the IPCC’s CAGWist presumption of aCO2 as the only significant cause of climate shifts in the mid to late 20th century and early 21st century.
Question – Do you see a significant increase this year in the number of papers/articles/posts that are simply showing the IPCC AGW scientific assessments did not and should not conform to actual climate observations? Or am I just imagining that the frequency of their occurrence is increasing significantly?
John
John
The truth finally wins.
They have completely ignored the cyclic nature of global mean temperature, and it is just a matter of time that nature will expose them.
@dahuang August 20, 2011 at 6:43 am
This study shows evidence of cyclicity, but doesn’t prove that these cycles are real, in a scientific way. If they predict and predict successfully, they will be shown to be incorporated into our scientific thinking. If they do not, then they will not prove that cycles don’t exist – only that this concept of cycles doesn’t work.
Falsifiable! We may actually be able to construct a falsifiable climate model. The Chinese did, all those years ago.
These cycles need to be the central skeleton of at least ONE climate model. And that model should be projected forward to 2100, with all the decades in between. Since it is cyclical in its claims, we should be able to verify the correctness of it all along the way. It is not necessary that it’s every aspect be understood, though that would surely be desirable.
When the early claims that the observed warming was caused by human and only human activity (and, it turns out, only by human CO2 activity, THIS is exactly the kind of natural causation that needed to be ruled out.
That such studies have come about is good. Good that they are actually being done at all. Bad, that it took this long. Bad, that blame was asserted before such studies’ were done and results were in. 30 years after global warming was declared, this kind of stuff shouldn’t only just now be being studied.
CAGW doesn’t come close to real scientific method. It doesn’t come up to primary school scientific method. Something as basic as this study looks at – where was the paper back in the 1980s that ruled this out? How can these people call themselves scientists?
Feet2thefire
Thanks very much.
That is also my question.
I think AGW is a political movement with pseudo science as its cover.
It is pseudo science because it claimed “accelerated warming” when non exists.
manacker
http://bit.ly/pIzwGv