Guest post by David Archibald
Three wise Norwegians – Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum – have just published a paper entitled “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24”. It is available online here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf
The authors have found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes by 0.21°C per year of solar cycle length. The biggest response found in the temperature series they examined was Svalbard at 1.09°C per year of solar cycle length. The authors also credit me with the discovery of a new branch of science. On page 6 they state.” Archibald (2008) was the first to realize that the length of the previous sunspot cycle (PSCL) has a predictive power for the temperature in the next sunspot cycle, if the raw (unsmoothed) value for the SCL is used.” I have decided to name this new branch of science “solarclimatology”. It is similar to Svensmark’s cosmoclimatology but much more readily quantifiable.
What we use solarclimatology for is to predict future climate. Professor Solheim and his co-authors have done that for Solar Cycle 24 which takes us out to 2026. Using Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram, we can go beyond that to about 2040: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/
The green corona emissions point to Solar Cycle 24 being 17 years long, and thus 4.5 years longer than Solar Cycle 23. Using the relationship found by Solheim and his co-authors, that means that the 0.63°C decline for the Northern Hemisphere over Solar Cycle 24 will be followed by a further 0.95°C over Solar Cycle 25. That is graphically indicated thusly, using Figure 19 from the Solheim et al paper:
The last time we witnessed temperatures anything like that was in the decade 1690 – 1700. Crop failures caused by cold killed off 10% of the populations of France, Norway and Sweden, 20% of the population of Estonia and one third of the population of Finland.
As noted above, Svalbard’s relationship is 1.09°C per year of solar cycle length. That means that it is headed for a total temperature fall of 8.2°C. The agricultural output of Svalbard and the rest of the island of Spitsbergen won’t be affected though, because there isn’t any. The biggest effect will on some of the World’s most productive agricultural lands. The solar cycle length – temperature relationship for some localities in the northeast US is 0.7°C degrees per year, which is a good proxy for the latitude of the US – Canadian border and thus the North American grain belt. Newman in 1980 found that the Corn Belt shifted 144 km per 1.0°C change in temperature. With the temperature falling 5.2°C, the Corn Belt will shift 750 km south to the Sun Belt, as shown following:
The outlook for Canadian agriculture is somewhat more dire. I expect Canadian agriculture will be reduced to trapping beavers, as in the 17th Century.
The current cold conditions in Europe resulted in more than 300 souls departing this mortal coil, and has discomforted some millions. Solheim and his co-authors note “As seen in figures 6 and 7, the Norwegian and Europe60 average temperatures have already started to decline towards the predicted SC24 values”.
References:
Newman, J. E. (1980). Climate change impacts on the growing season of the North American Corn Belt. Biometeorology, 7 (2), 128-142. Supplement to International Journal of Biometeorology, 24 (December, 1980).
Sunspots influence low-level clouds which then influence average global temperature. A licensed engineer’s assessment of what has been and is going on is available. A wider lower solar cycle can have the same influence on climate as a narrow high one. The sunspot time-integral exploits this to, with ocean cycles, calculate average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy as demonstrated in detail in the pdf made public 11/24/11 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The derived simple equation that does this also accurately (std dev less than 0.1C) predicts temperatures since 1990. Change to the amount of atmospheric CO2 has no significant influence.
mwhite writes: “New crops and farming methods led to an increase in the food supply. New crops being such things as potatoes, turnips, peas and beans which would grow in cooler wet conditions. Another LIA should not be a disaster.”
My impression is that a huge portion of our modern increase in food production has been corn and the trickle down of cheap corn into everything else from HFCS to beef and pork, so I think your “new crops” are probably not a significant factor in our food production bubble.
It is also difficult to understate how much cooler weather affects yield, but as a farmer with a physicist for a daddy, I can help by pointing out that less energy in is less energy out in foodstuffs, no matter the crop. And the adjustment, I don’t imagine, will be smooth. Farmers are stubborn, and often behind the curve. Go ahead, try to tell a cotton farmer to plant corn, and a corn farmer to plant rye. What we need is Al Gore to organize a farm equipment exchange progra. . . no? why don’t need cotton gins in Alberta?
Another factor to consider is that a huge portion of our cheap food today is based on (relatively) cheap petrol for making fertilizer. How is that going to work if we’re burning more petrol to heat our homes? And then it will also cost more to run the farm equipment. And all for lower production because it is cloudier and/or cooler. We’ll be fine? We who? Maybe the farmers. . .
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Ian W says:
February 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
The reason that nobody is “doing an atmospheric energy balance based on the enthalpy per cubic foot/meter” is that there are surprisingly few people who actually understand enthalpy.
Enthalpy is not heat nor energy.
;————————————————————————————————————-
False.
It’s heat (or energy.)
Enthalpy is thermodynamic potential which is used for processes which release or absorb heat under conditions of constant pressure.
All the thermodynamic potentials are Legendre transformations of the the internal energy.
If the internal energy is in Joules, then enthalpy is in Joules.
Under some experimental conditions, it’s the only heat which can be measured.
‘Solarclimatology’ is hardly new. A E Douglass invented dendrochronology in the hope that it would show a relation between sunspot cycles and earth’s climate. Maybe the thing is not that you invented the science, but that you won the prize.
http://www.americanscientist.org/include/popup_fullImage.aspx?key=PEXGh9HGFskt1L1lMNma5sAEibFxceGx
In reply to the Realclimate “bet”.
William M. Connolley says:
February 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm
> If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong
I suppose it will be obvious if there is a rapid climate change event “Ricky”, of the cooling type that there were a number of fundamental mistakes made in AR4. It appears everyone has forgotten that there are cyclic “Rickies” of the cooling type in the paleoclimatic record. Stop and take amount to look at paleoclimatic record.
Based on the paleo record and my understanding of the mechanisms we will not need to wait much longer to see the first sign that there is a significant problem.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png
There is a lag of 5 years +/- 1 for the ocean surface temperature to reach equilibrium in response to a step forcing change based on analysis of forcing changes due to SO2 cooling caused by volcanic eruption. The observed 10 to 12 year delay in Arctic cooling, (See paper linked to below) from the initiation of the interruption of the solar cycle to the cooling of the arctic is interesting and is to do to a different issue than thermal lag. The authors of the paper are predicting a 3C average cooling with 6C cooling in the winter. (Applies to the entire Arctic?)
The reason for the 10 to 12 year delay in cooling is the same reason why there is correlation of ocean level to solar magnetic cycle progression (high when the cycle is high and low when the cycle is low). There will be (assuming I understand the mechanisms) during this solar cycle interruption be an anomalously large drop in sea level. (Anomalous as the drop in sea level will be significantly more than can be explained by thermal contraction or by increased ice sheet mass. There are in the paleo record past anomalous significant unexplained large changes in sea level.)
I am curious what the Realclimate et al and the IPCC’s response would be to unequivocal significant cooling. Which group accepts responsibility for the food to biofuel fiasco? (See my comment above.) Obviously abrupt cooling with no preparation will be more than a PR problem. If the planet abruptly cools are we allies? What is the backup plan?
If the planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the forcing (negative feedback, planetary clouds in the tropics increase or decreasing to resist the change) then there is a very, very, large forcing function that is causing the cyclic changes in planetary temperature in the paleoclimatic record.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. The relations between the length of a solar cycle and the mean temperature in the following cycle, is used to model Svalbard annual mean temperature, and seasonal temperature variations. Residuals from the annual and winter models show no autocorrelations on the 5 per cent level, which indicates that no additional parameters are needed to explain the temperature variations with 95 per cent significance. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity.
Additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5±2 oC from solar Cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 oC.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary
Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times,
Initial evidence from the GRIP ice core evidence (Dansgaard et al., 1993; Taylor et al. 1993) indicated that the Eemian (My comment last interglacial period) was punctuated by many short-lived cold events, as shown by variations in electrical conductivity (a proxy for windblown dust, with more dust indicating colder, more arid conditions) and stable oxygen isotopes (a proxy for air temperature) of the ice were used by these workers infer the climatic conditions during the Eemian. The cold events seemed to last a few thousand years, and the magnitude of cooling was similar to the difference between glacial and interglacial conditions; a very dramatic contrast in climate. Furthermore, the shifts between these warm and cold periods seemed to be extremely rapid, possibly occurring over a few decades or less.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/9557
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.
The implications of the new work, say the authors of the study, support a different hypothesis: that rapid cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere synchronized climate change around the globe during each of the last two glacial epochs.
“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.”
William says:
Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years throughout the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified, primarily from fluctuations in ice-rafted debris. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a magnitude of perhaps 15–20% of the glacial-interglacial temperature change.
That is the whole point of my blog post at:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/1470-year-do-events-transition-from.html
[Which I independently discovered before April 2007 [the date stamp on the graph posted on the blog]
According to this plot the last substantial warming [I am not talking about the cooling part of the DO/Bond event] began in about ~ 700 AD – producing the medieval warm period. This means that the next warming event will begin in roughly ~ 700 + 1470 = 2170 A.D. However, given the +/- 500 year error in the length of the Bond events, this can only be a very rough guestimate.
“The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.”
Now this prediction is much better for humanity – in that we will have more time to prepare for severe cooling. Perhaps by then the phony global warming crisis will be fully discredited, and we will, as a society, no longer be led by scoundrels and imbeciles.
I guess that makes me an optimist. 🙂
Regards, Allan
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
http://www.ccsenet.org/apr Applied Physics Research Vol. 4, No. 1; February 2012
178
ISSN 1916-9639 E-ISSN 1916-9647
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to
Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov
Pulkovo Observatory of the RAS Pulkovskoye shosse 65, St. Petersburg, 196140, Russia Email: abduss@gao.spb.ru
Received: September 22, 2011 Accepted: October 9, 2011 Published: February 1, 2012 doi:10.5539/apr.v4n1p178 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v4n1p178
Abstract
Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state. Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.
I just never forget that the same people who screamed Ice age in the 70’s are the same people who now tell us were burning up. How hard will it be to go back to screaming ice age? Im sick of sky is falling theory. If its going to get colder then we will adjust and survive just the same way we would if it got warmer. My prediction is that at the end of another 100 yrs the world climate, if you can possibly measure such a thing will gain or lose its 1 degree no matter how much we fret about it.
Hmm, i don’t think a 1.7 degree drop represents an ice age, rather its a bit nippy age. The point is that the Maunder minimum was ushered in with very little warning so temperature swings of this magnitude do happen. Personally, I am a little more comforted by a scenario that doesn’t involve quite so much human input, we always have rather a high opinion of ourselves. Well, we shall see and it won’t take very long either, just so long as nobody tries to talk about the missing cold.
Roger Knights> Hie thee to Intrade
Good thought; thanks. Unfortunately all the bets there seem to be about how warm it might be; I can’t see anyone offering rapid cooling to bet against.
I see the post author has been here answering some Q’s, but hasn’t taken up my offer.
murrayv> In principle I will take your bet, but I must ask you to state what you are betting very clearly and unambiguously
Oh good. Lets try to work this out via email, since I suspect there will be much tedious back-n-forth, and then we can report back here. I don’t know your address; I’m wmconnolley(at)gmail.com.
Regarding bets, there is a clear criterion bet already underway via NoTricksZone you all might care to join. http://notrickszone.com/join-the-climate-bet-for-charity/
I look at history and archeology and take a good slow long look around, the last time the coldening appeared we were in the stone age. This time around and regardless of the warmanistas there will be a this time around, we are some what better placed.
The warmanistas have placed us in a more precarious position than would otherwise
have been, but being as we are a very adaptive mob we shall overcome both them and the climate. I do believe we were instructed to go forth and subdue the world, this is an instruction to make the world user friendly. The greens and the warmies have made planning for the future hard.
Coal gas and oil futures would at this time be prudent and will probably ensure your children’s future. I am getting old now and have seen the scams of the past, I have lived a lot of history and seen the revisions, we are living in a strange time of wierding of past and future.
Global warming per sec does not appear to be occurring, the sun had some severe tantrums in the twentieth century, but now seems to be sulking, the temperature regardless of the AGW mob seems to follow the suns moods. There are some people with cold fannies at the moment that may whole heartedly agree.
The window of opportunity to change the direction of wayward governments is getting closer as the earth refuses to follow orders. I can not forsee global warming, for it is not possible with a quite sun, but I have grand children and I want them to have power and heating at a reasonable cost.
Predictions based on solid science are closer to the truth than rants about GHG’s and CAGW which are based on wishful thinking. Solar science has improved a lot in the past ten years and the predictions are based on past times of severe climate change related to known solar activity and sun spot cycles and since the sun supplies all the external heat to this planet it controls the climate.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Ian W says:
February 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
The reason that nobody is “doing an atmospheric energy balance based on the enthalpy per cubic foot/meter” is that there are surprisingly few people who actually understand enthalpy.
Enthalpy is not heat nor energy.
“Another useful state variable is enthalpy, defined as the sum of the internal energy and the product of pressure and volume. In other words, H = U + PV. The justification for defining this variable is really only a matter of convenience, because we often find that the sum U + PV occurs in thermodynamic equations. This isn’t surprising, because the work done by a quantity of gas depends on the product of pressure times volume. When a gas expands quasi-statically at constant pressure, the incremental work δW done on the boundary is PdV, so from the energy equation dU = δQ – δW we have δQ = dU + PdV. Noting that, at constant pressure, dH = dU + PdV, it follows that δQ = dH for this process. This explains why enthalpy is often a convenient state variable, especially in open systems. Obviously enthalpy has units of energy, but it doesn’t necessarily have a direct physical interpretation as a quantity of heat. In other words, enthalpy is not any specific form of energy, it is just a defined variable that often simplifies the calculations in the solution of practical thermodynamic problems.”
Leif, come away from that lamppost?
Where in my post did I say that enthalpy ‘is a specific form of energy?’ you are using a strawman argument.
I was pointing out that metrics for atmospheric heat content based solely on temperature are incorrect and that the enthalpy of the atmosphere at various levels of humidity have to be considered. If you take a day which starts cool and misty and almost 100% humidity then towards the afternoon the humidity has dropped significantly and the temperature has risen, it is possible that the ‘energy content’ of the air in kJ/Kg has actually dropped. Yet the crowd of climatologists under the lamppost are taking the minimum temperature of just after dawn and the maximum temperature in the afternoon and averaging them, then getting into heated debate on the time-of-day for measurements and the number of decimal places of precision the average temperature should be in; when the metric they are using air temperature is not measuring the variable that they claim to be concerned about atmospheric heat content..
This is undergraduate level experimental design – what are you measuring, what metrics will you use, what methodologies will you use to obtain the metrics.
In many cases humidity has been measured it should be used together with temperature so that the energy content of the air in kJ/Kg can be calculated and used as the correct metric for atmospheric energy. Then the best method of working out the diurnal atmospheric energy flux can be defined.
If it is true that humidity globally has been reducing – then it might be that the slight rise in atmospheric temperature is solely due to that reduction and that there is no lost heat for Trenberth to search for.
I just can’t imagine how Will Connolley and his band of merry CAGWrs would react if CO2 levels started levelling off and declining along with predicted global temperatures.
> if CO2 levels started levelling off and declining
CO2 increase comes from human emissions. Levels will only decline if we cut back emissions very heavily, which is unlikely. Again, if you really believe that CO2 levels will decline in the near future, I’ve got $1k that says you’re wrong. Care to put your money where your mouth is?
I predict that Connolley will welch on his $1000 wager. He’s already been faded, and now he’s hedging. Predictable, from a devious propagadist censor with no ethics. Connolley is a coward, and looking for a way out.
Smokey, you’re all words and no substance. I’ve offered $1k: are you prepared to accept or are you the coward you accuse me of being?
No, Connoley, you are the coward. As I’ve stated here many times, I do not make predictions about the future; however, you did. And by your usual propaganda, everyone who declines your bet is a coward. But you have been faded, and now you tap dance, waver, and nitpick conditions to avoid losing. Either man up and take the bet as offered, or run off with your tail between your quivering hind legs. [Hint: Long Bets would resolve every cowardly quibble you could raise.]
Wriggle matching is the lowest form of scientific reporting. Without mechanism u cannot rule out all the stupid reasons. I get up at 5:00 every day. Therefore I make the sun rise. U also cannot keep your bias at bay. This post is filled with bias and very little science. Epic epic fail.
Smokey;
The true faith is crumbling like week-old burnt toast. That’s why the Warmistas are here. Don’t allow Connolley to waste your time. Ignore him.
> Either take the bet as offered
What are you on about? No-one has offered to bet, unconditionally.
The censorious tap dancing William Connolley says….
“CO2 increase comes from human emissions. Levels will only decline if we cut back emissions very heavily,…..”
Interesting theory. Do you have any serious replicable science to back it up?
Do you ever consider that CO2 levels were dangerously LOW? And that recent increases are actually a positive?
Or do only negative “doom and gloom” scenarios fit into your political agenda?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/influential-people-are-getting-the-message-gina-rinehart-explains-the-science-of-climate-change/
“To get carbon dioxide, a plant food, into perspective, for every one carbon dioxide molecule of human origin there are 32 of natural origin in a total of 88,000 other molecules.
It has yet to be shown that this one molecule in 88,000 drives climate change and there is only information to the contrary because no past climate changes (which were larger and more rapid than anything we measure today) were driven by carbon dioxide, certainly not human induced, and what we measure today is within variability.”
Pamela Gray says:
February 12, 2012 at 6:53 am
However, if you get up three minutes later each day so that at:
at 5:05 a.m. and the Sun rises
at 6:08 a.m. the next day the Sun rises again
at 7:11 a.m. the day after that and the Sun rises again
at 7:14 a.m. the day after that and the Sun rises again
at 7:17 a.m. the day after that and the Sun rises again ….. etc.
Wiggle matching does have some meaning.Your observations may not
tell you what type of mechanism is involved but it does allow you to
speculate that there may be a logical mechanism involved.
> one carbon dioxide molecule of human origin there are 32 of natural origin in a total of 88,000 other molecules
Standard nonsense I’m afraid.
1-in-88,000: O2 and N2 aren’t radiatively active in the infrared (because they are diatomic, not triatomic or more). Did you never wonder why methane, water vapour, CFC’s and CO2 are greenhouse gases, but O2 and N2 aren’t?
1-in-32: you’re mistaking emissions for net fluxes. Natural emissions are large, but so is the natural drawdown. Natural fluxes are nearly in balance. Human emissions are much greater than the natural net flux. You need to drop the wacky way-out not-respectable “skepticism” and learn enough that you can be rationally skeptical.
Pamela Gray (February 12, 2012 at 6:53 am) getting it backwards:
“Wriggle matching is the lowest form of scientific reporting. Without mechanism u cannot rule out all the stupid reasons.”
Great suggestion Pamela: Simply don’t check abstract conception of mechanisms against raw data? Skip the data and just do abstract theory, even in areas of deep unknowns?
DATA, not abstract conceptions, have the final say on what mechanistic constructions of the imagination are admissible. The only sensible option is thorough & careful exploration of deep unknowns before abstract theorizing. Cute theoretical & inferential mechanisms seduce. Sober checks against real DATA are necessary to keep conceptually drunk abstraction on the leash of reality. For one prominent, staggering example, the “uniform 0.1K” solar-terrestrial-climate narrative that we see trumpeted here almost daily is strictly inadmissible under geophysical data. However, by repetition of the falsehood ad infinitum (whether by naive ignorance or malicious deception is immaterial since it’s intolerably 1+1=3 either way), some suckers have been conned into buying the smoking pile of dung. Great mechanism that is – for political purposes perhaps. Trust obliterated.