New York's new Climate Change Museum

Um….. haven’t all the polls shown that the public has NO interest in climate change whatsoever?
So I suspect that the museum won’t get many visitors at all….

Climate change is actually very interesting due to the scientific issues, the impact on scientific theory, and the issues that have developed due to 30 years of climate wars, and lastly due to what is about to happen to the earth’s climate.
A problem for a climate change museum, is the cause, the forcing function for climate ‘change’ is not known to the general scientific community. It is a fact that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle change not the rise in atmospheric CO2.
As it is a physical fact that hot air rises and hot air rising causes cold air to fall, convection cooling must increase and does increase if greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere. The so called no feedback 1-D calculation to estimate the amount of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 froze the lapse rate, assumed there is zero increase in convection cooling in response to the increase in greenhouse gas which is ridiculous, physically impossible. In addition to ignoring convection cooling the same calculation ignored the overlap of the absorption of water and CO2 which is also ridiculous, goofy (as 70% of the earth’s surface is covered with water which explains why there is a great deal of water vapor in the lower atmosphere particularly in tropical region). Both incorrect assumptions are required to create the possibility of CAGW warming. Correcting the calculation for either increased convection or the overlap of water vapor and CO2 reduces the warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 without feedbacks from 1.2 C to 0.1C to 0.2C. 0.1 to 0.2C is so small the no feedback warming is ball park the same as with feedbacks warming.

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
Mark Twain

http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
This not a theoretical issue, an issue which is removed from everyday life. We are going to have a front row seat to watch how an abrupt change to the solar cycle causes a Heinrich event.
Most people know the planet’s temperature changes cyclically. Few people know that the reason why the planet changes temperature cyclically (the physical reason for the glacial/interglacial cycle) is not known to the general scientific community and few people now the planet’s temperature changes abruptly, rather than gradually.
Almost 20 years ago it was discovered that the planet’s temperature change abruptly, based on an analysis of the Greenland Ice Sheet core. The paleo climatologists did not believe it was possible for the planet to change temperature as abruptly as the Greenland Ice core data indicated, so a second Greenland Ice core was drilled which confirmed the results of GSIP1 that the planetary temperature abrupt changes. Many people are aware that the planet’s temperature changes have a periodicity of 400 years and 1500 years and roughly every 10,000 years the planet experiences a super large abrupt climate forcing change.
William,
The assertion that summer insolation changes at 65N due to the earth’s orbital changes, which is referred to as Milankovitch’s theory, somehow causes the glacial/interglacial cycle and somehow causes cyclic abrupt climate change, is an urban legend. There are piles and piles of urban legends concerning what cause cyclic abrupt climate change. The solution to what causes cyclic abrupt climate change is that the sun is fundamentally different than the standard model. There are piles and piles of astronomical paradoxes and anomalies (which are all found in peer reviewed papers, the number of anomalies and paradoxes is increasing not decreasing, and some of which have been known more than 30 years) that support that assertion.
Currently summer insolation at 65N is the same as the coldest part of the last interglacial. That is a bad thing rather than a good thing as the orbit position when there is an abrupt change to solar cycle determines the magnitude of the abrupt change of the sun on the planet’s climate. The silver lining is it appears the physics behind what is happening to the sun will solve the energy problem and will lead to interstellar travel. Good thing rather than a bad thing.
There are at least 12 different observations and analysis results that support the assertion that insolation changes at 65N are physically not capable of causing the temperature changes observed in the paleo record and did not cause what is observed. The following is a sample of the paradoxes which disproof the theory.

1) 100,000 year problem
The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity – according to theory- and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, the greatest observed response in regard to the ice ages is at the 100,000-year timescale, even though the theoretical forcing is smaller at this scale.[10] During the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively great 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.

http://www.news.wisc.edu/9557

2) Southern Hemisphere cools cyclically at the same time as the Northern Hemisphere
Glacial records depict ice age climate in synch worldwide
“During the last two times in Earth’s history when glaciation occurred in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods,” says Kaplan.
The results address a major debate in the scientific community, according to Singer and Kaplan, because they seem to undermine a widely held idea that global redistribution of heat through the oceans is the primary mechanism that drove major climate shifts of the past.
“Because the Earth is oriented in space in such a way that the hemispheres are out of phase in terms of the amount of solar radiation they receive, it is surprising to find that the climate in the Southern Hemisphere cooled off repeatedly during a period when it received its largest dose of solar radiation,” says Singer. “Moreover, this rapid synchronization of atmospheric temperature between the polar hemispheres appears to have occurred during both of the last major ice ages that gripped the Earth.”

3) Stage 5 problem (Causality Problem)
The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) that appears to have begun ten thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have caused it (also known as the causality problem)(putative effect precedes cause).

4) Effect exceeds cause
The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behavior is much more intense than the calculated variations.

5) The unsplit peak problem
The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125 ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies.[15] However, some researchers[who?] interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100 ka periodicity.

6) The transition problem
The transition problem refers to the switch in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1–3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41 ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this switched to a 100 ka variation matching eccentricity, for which no reason has been established

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg

7) Identifying dominant factor
Milankovitch believed that decreased summer insolation in northern high latitudes was the dominant factor leading to glaciation, which led him to (incorrectly) deduce an approximate 41 ka period for ice ages.[16] Subsequent research[17][18][19] has shown that ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last million years have been at a 100,000-year period, leading to identification of the 100 ka eccentricity cycle as more important, although the exact mechanism remains obscure
The Earth’s orbit is an ellipse. The eccentricity is a measure of the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth’s orbit varies in time between nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.000055) and mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.0679)[3] with the mean eccentricity of 0.0019 as geometric or logarithmic mean and 0.034 as arithmetic mean, the latter useless. The major component of these variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). A number of other terms vary between components 95,000 and 125,000 years (with a beat period 400,000 years), and loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of −0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017 and decreasing.