Commentary from Nature Climate Change, by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.
Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5
models (see Supplementary Information).
These models generally simulate natural variability — including that associated
with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and explosive volcanic eruptions — as
well as estimate the combined response of climate to changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations, aerosol abundance (of sulphate, black carbon and organic carbon,
for example), ozone concentrations (tropospheric and stratospheric), land
use (for example, deforestation) and solar variability. By averaging simulated
temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find
an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C
per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The
observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and
only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational
uncertainty (Fig. 1a).
Figure 1 | Trends in global mean surface temperature. a, 1993–2012. b, 1998–2012. Histograms of observed trends (red hatching) are from 100 reconstructions of the HadCRUT4 dataset1. Histograms of model trends (grey bars) are based on 117 simulations of the models, and black curves are smoothed versions of the model trends. The ranges of observed trends reflect observational uncertainty, whereas the ranges of model trends reflect forcing uncertainty, as well as differences in individual model responses to external forcings and uncertainty arising from internal climate variability.
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more
striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012).
For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four
times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b).
It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly
different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming. The
divergence between observed and CMIP5-simulated global warming begins in the
early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends
from 1970–2012 (Fig. 2a and 2b for 20-year and 15-year running trends, respectively).
The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models
(when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce
the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global
warming over the past fifteen years.
This interpretation is supported by statistical tests of the null hypothesis that the
observed and model mean trends are equal, assuming that either: (1) the models are
exchangeable with each other (that is, the ‘truth plus error’ view); or (2) the models
are exchangeable with each other and with the observations (see Supplementary
Information).
Brief: http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/pcic_science_brief_FGZ.pdf
Paper at NCC: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309
- Supplementary Information (241 KB) CMIP5 Models
Sleepalot: I like this explanation from,
Pekka Pirilä | September 8, 2013 at 11:51 am |
Actually the temperature is lower at the skin than slightly below. The warmest layers are not deep below, but they are a little (like a few meters) below the surface, because the surface is losing energy, while the heating is done by solar SW that’s mostly absorbed a few meters deep in the ocean. There might be some local exceptions when warm moist air is brought in, but such situations are so exceptional that they have no influence on the overall picture.
sleepalot says
Just because your curve looks likes the flight of a ball, does not mean the thing you’re modelling is a ball in flight – it may be a butterfly.
henry says
well. if you had been following the discussion and if you were able to understand, you would have noticed that initially I had us on a binomial that would have brought us into an ice age very quickly. Luckily someone ( I think it was AussiDan) pointed me to the fact that it was more likely to be a sine wave,
So indeed, there was a butterfly, coming to rescue us. I subsequently found out that this butterfly comes in the form of two planets, who, in their circles around the sun, throw and catch us again, allowing global warming- and global cooling periods, of 44 years each, coming from the sun. My only worry now is : what if something happens to those two planets whilst in flight around the sun?
Anyway, it seems there is currently only one person who seems to get worried about that, so you can go back to sleep safely. I hope….
henry@richardscourtney
I agree that it was nasty of me. I do apologize. Please do accept my apologies.
You can heat water through the sides of a glass, you can heat water through the bottom of a pot but you can not heat water through it’s surface because surface tension blocks the heat. Try heating water through the surface using a heat gun. At 450degsC the water should quickly boil, instead it remains cold. To heat water through the surface it is necessary to float something on the surface like a pan or metal dish to cancel the surface tension then heat will flow. Exactly why the heat is so convincingly rejected is not something I claim to understand but I suspect that the scientific community have seriously underestimated the properties of surface tension. Not many people fire heat guns at buckets of water but Trenberth’s missing heat made me curious, so Itried heating water from above. I recommend it.
Surface tension does not block heat.
However — as I noted — water is lightest where it is warmest, and when one blows warm(er) air over it you have several distinct ways to cool that can easily overwhelm the warming. For example, a warm wind will still cool your cooler skin if the skin is damp because it causes forced evaporation. This has been known since ancient times, and in India and other hot countries whole buildings were built well over a thousand years ago that cooled using this principle.
If the hot air you blow over the water is hot enough, of course, it will heat the water. Try repeating your experiment with a blowtorch. It will take a long time to heat the water because of its stratification — water is not a terribly good conductor of heat — but it will warm. If you stir the water while you are heating it it will warm much faster, although probably not very fast if it is a large container of water.
The scientific community doesn’t underestimate the properties of surface tension, they just happen to know what they are (unlike you, I am sorry to say). For example, liquid metals such as mercury have a much, much higher surface tension than water, but they heat up just fine because they do not evaporate as quickly and carry as much heat away as they do.
The thing you are missing, in other words, is “latent heat of evaporation”. You can, of course, read up on this on Wikipedia.
rgb
I take it that you have not tried to heat water from above, until you do there is little point in us having a discussion. If you cover water you can heat it but you can not heat uncovered water. The device that I used was a heat gun 450degsC, hot enough I would say.
Take a hairdryer and blow it on dry skin. The air will feel very warm and will rapidly warm the skin (even to where it can burn). Take the same hairdryer and blow it on wet skin, or worse, on a wet tee shirt laid over the skin. It might well actually feel cool until the water evaporates, and will certainly take a while to warm. That is because the MOVING AIR carries away water vapor, cooling the surface exactly the way hot soup cools when you blow on it. The fact that the air is warm merely makes it easier to knock air molecules off of the surface by providing part of the energy needed to do the knocking.
rgb
I would like to comment on that post. If you go one stage further and apply the heat from a heat gun to the surface of water you will find that even though you are applying 450degsC the water will remain cold. Evaporation is not evident because there is no steam. My conclusion at this time is that surface tension blocks heat. Surface tension has properties that are not understood and AGW is a nonsense.
Perhaps I am expecting that people who react on this post about “statistical proof” know something about stats, i.e. that they studied probability theory, distribution theory, sampling techniques, least square fitting, etc.
It looks to me that there is really no such qualified person here.
Dear Henry,
I’m your man, here. Which is why I have tried to teach you. You are utterly clueless about the entire subject if you think that the ability to fit a linear curve to a segment of data has predictive force outside of the segment being fit. Statistical proof, by the way, is an oxymoron, or at best an asymptotic state. You might learn something about Bayes theorem and conditional probability before even attempting to talk about the subject.
That’s why when you make egregious claims about “proof” that there is a causal connection between two things because you find similar fourier components in the two, you are wildly incorrect in your assertions of a concrete probability. You clearly do not understand the nature of the term “p-value”, or how it can apply to the null hypothesis. I, on the other hand, wrote and maintain dieharder, which has an interface in R, the well-known statistics package. dieharder is basically raw hypothesis testing made manifest in the direct realm of randomness itself.
I’m just sayin’. You can claim “Everybody else in the world but me is ignorant about statistics”, but you have at least two Ph.D.s who actually know a lot about it and do research that requires the knowledge (or, in my case, have a predictive modeling start up company on TOP of writing dieharder and spending 15 years doing importance sampling Monte Carlo in statistical mechanics) that you are making this claim about, and if you are wise you will pay attention to what we say.
Not that I expect this, but as I said, one has to try.
rgb
@ur momisugly rgb
you are insulting me again…claiming I am clueless, which makes it difficult for me to even try a conversation with you.
If you followed the thread you would know that I did challenge both you and richard to show me your own results and that challenge still stands, as far as I am concerned.
So why don’t you show me your results on global cooling /warming and impress me?
Or why would you not simply get a class of students(who just have to learn least square fitting) to see if you cannot duplicate my results?
So far, it seems to me the logical answer to that simple multiple choice question is ….?
I would rather trust someone with results than someone with a Ph.D and no results…..
btw are you, richard brown, and richardscourtney perhaps one and the same person?
@ur momisuglysleepalot
regarding your comment that you left at my tables on my blog:
clearly you do not know yet what a least square fit is,
so I wil tell you what it is exactly.
It is the average change from the average temperature measured over the period indicated.
This value is of course a lot lower than the temperatures indicated in the “Klima” data from tutiempo.net
Now try and find out how to do least square fitting. In Excel it is called linear trending.
It will change your life forever.
btw
Sea water is heated by ir-radiation by the sun followed by the re-radiation of some of that radiation in the absorptive regions of water. An interesting aspect is that oceans never get warmer than 35 degrees C. Now you tell me why.
HenryP:
At September 8, 2013 at 11:58 am you ask
This has been known for decades. For the first of several reports of it I refer you to
V. Ramanathan & W. Collins, ‘Thermodynamic regulation of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations of the 1987 El Niño’, Nature, 351, 27 – 32 (02 May 1991)
Abstract
Observations made during the 1987 El Niño show that in the upper range of sea surface temperatures, the greenhouse effect increases with surface temperature at a rate which exceeds the rate at which radiation is being emitted from the surface. In response to this ‘super greenhouse effect’, highly reflective cirrus clouds are produced which act like a thermostat shielding the ocean from solar radiation. The regulatory effect of these cirrus clouds may limit sea surface temperatures to less than 305 K.
As I have repeatedly said (e.g. on WUWT) the effect means that additional heating (from any source) in the tropics REDUCES sea surface temperature when 305 K is reached because the induced clouds drift to regions adjacent to the region at 305 K and thus shield the adjacent regions from the Sun, too.
Richard
richardscourtney
This has been known for decades.
henry says.
thanks for that explanation. I take it you accepted my apology.
It sounds very plausible for me but there is one thing that I also noted. My pool is solar heated and no matter what I do, I also cannot get the pool heated to above 35. So here the cloud theory does not work (I think)
My theory up to now was that the rate of evaporation @top of the water reaches a level where it keeps cooling the layer below, similar to the effect you notice when a low boiling fluid on your skin cools your skin very badly (to the point where it can cause cold burn, in the case of some CFC’s that we used to use in deodorants) until it reaches that equilibrium where the water reaches 305K. Beyond that point, more heat in will only cause more evaporation.
[that is what I think]
HenryP:
Of course I accept your apology and I thank you for it. I saw no reason to mention it again and, thus, to make a big thing of it. I answered your subsequent question and I would not have taken the trouble to do that if we had fallen out.
Your evapouration theory is correct to some degree. I refer you to the explanation by rgbatduke in his posts at September 8, 2013 at 9:59 am and September 8, 2013 at 10:04 am.
However, pan studies do not indicate the limit temperature of 305 K. Also, increased evapouration implies greater atmospheric humidity with resulting radiative warming from water vapour. Hence, Ramanathan & Collins (R&C) suggested that the increased humidity also creates the cirrus shielding.
Much debate occurred in the literature as to whether R&C were correct. Most of this debate concerned whether the 305 K limit actually exists. R&C ‘won’ that debate and the dissenters ‘abandoned the field’.
Richard
HenryP: Sunshine routinely heats my pool to over 35c, highest I’ve seen is 99F. I live in Phoenix AZ, Gilbert actually.
@Dale Rainwater. Brown
If you do not understand the basics of sampling techniques, statistics and (justified) curve fitting, and probability theory I cannot help you, either.
Who, me? What is this “sampling techiques” of which you speak? Probability theory? What, exactly, is that? I mean seriously, do you say things just to hear yourself talk?
I mean, it is actually almost funny in a sad, sad way. Exactly, do you know a priori what curve one is “justified” in fitting to what function or phenomenon without a physical model other than “Saturn makes the earth heat and cool” which sounds a lot more like astrology than physics (because it is a lot more like astrology than physics)?
Here, try your model out on this curve, or hell, just tell me what function you are “justified” in fitting to the data:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Or this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Or this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
(take your pick, since you are gifted with special knowledge that everybody else lacks) or even this one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Be sure and project your solution backwards and see how well it hindcasts all of these figures. Saturn, my ass. Sinusoid, ditto. Linear trend? Hah! Multiple sinusoids? Do you think you are the first person to attempt a fourier transform of the data?
Seriously, do you even know what a fourier transform is? Or are you just using Excel to fit a spreadsheet full of numbers you “randomly selected” over a range where the fit happens to work? Because buddy, your fit won’t work (as in extrapolate into the past over any of the curves above. Not even close. So why, exactly, are you so 99.99999% certain that you can project them into the future, when they cannot come close to predicting the temperatures over even the last 140 years, let alone 1000, 12000, 5000000.
rgb
rgb
So why don’t you show me your results on global cooling /warming and impress me?
My “results”? Now you’re just kidding. If you read what I fairly regularly state on WUWT, I don’t think anybody’s “results”, no matter how stupidly or cleverly they are computed, come close to capturing the complexity of the climate. I don’t even think we’ll have the data needed to figure out the climate for decades to as long as another century. But regarding stupid vs clever, fitting arbitrary curves is stupid (and, as Richard has aptly pointed out, not science, because what is the hypothesis? How can it be falsified?)
However, I do know a fair bit of physics (in addition to being able to, on a good day, derive probability theory from first principles such as the Cox axioms following either his approach or that of Jaynes) and I assure you — there is absolutely no plausible way that I can think of that Saturn could have the slightest effect on the climate of the Earth. You do know that it is pretty far away, right? And that anything Saturn brings to the table, Jupiter brings many times more (being a lot closer and a fair bit bigger). And Jupiter is still so far away and so weak that it has essentially no measurable effect on the Earth.
You’ll have to talk to Leif (that is a threat:-) if you want to assert that Jupiter or Saturn either one or both together have any significant effect on the Sun (so it could indirectly affect the Earth). At the very least, if you want to make assertions of this sort you need to come up with a plausible physical model beyond “and then a miracle happens…”.
You will recall that I’ve looked over all of your computations before, right down to the data in your spreadsheets, and they are pure numerology, not science, and not a credible model. Hindcast the holocene, then we’ll talk.
rgb
btw are you, richard brown, and richardscourtney perhaps one and the same person?
I have no idea who Richard Brown is, never heard of him. You can visit my website at Duke any time and determine whether or not you think it is plausible that Duke is participating in some sort of global plot to fool you, especially given the amount of work involved. My personal web page, BTW, gets around 12 million hits a year even without a blog — just because it provides lots of valuable resources that people all over the world access fairly regularly. So it must really be a hell of a conspiracy, huh?
As for who Richard “really” is, you’ll have to ask him. I only know him from communications on WUWT and hence do not know of his credentials (if any) and so on. For the most part, his remarks seem fairly sober and usually are backed up by references, far more so than most posters on WUWT. I have come to respect his comments, in part because he, like me, is just as likely to bop bad skeptical “science” — like yours — as he is to bop bad CAGW science. I would not speak for him, but I’d be surprised if he thinks the issue of anthropogenic global warming, catastrophic or not, is resolved either way. I certainly don’t.
rgb
Henry, since you have not posted the list of stations you used, I am assuming the dog ate it?
Come on Henry. This is not hard. List the stations. A pseudo random sample must be described in detail in order to replicate the study. This is standard research 101, freshman class.
@ur momisugly Richardscourtney: yes, happy to help. 🙂 Bumblebee is an alternative to butterfly
(flight of the bumblebee).
@BBould
I take it that your system works similar as mine, pumping the water through solar panels attached to the roof.
Increasing the pumping time more should heat the water more when there is sunshine. In my case I never get the water warmer than 34-35 (in summer). If you say you can get it to 36 or 37 then I suspect that the difference lies in the air pressure. I live in Pretoria at 1000 meter high (3000 ft). The lower air pressure, the lower the boiling point, the higher the evaporation rate. It is the higher evaporation rate that cools the water more. Following these simple considerations, I take that Gilbert is or must be close to sea level?
Pamela says
Henry, since you have not posted the list of stations you used,
@Pamela
Each station’s town and its latitude is mentioned in the tables.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
For example, here are the original results from JFK airport (New York)
http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/New_York_Kennedy_International_Airport/744860.htm
Note that in this particular example you will have to go into the individual month’s data for 2002 and 2005 to see which months are missing (or have only partial data) and apply the correction as explained earlier in my sampling technique 2)d)
Once you have the whole set of data complete (for a weather station) , you can do the linear trending for the periods as indicated in my tables. I take you know how to do that.
@the Richards
Please do carry on, stumbling around in the darkness. It might keep you in your jobs, to try and keep the people confused.
HenryP:
I admit that I am losing patience with your unfounded smears, misrepresentations and insults which you seem to think are an alternative to explaining the methods you used to formulate your assertions.
The latest example of your behaviour is at September 8, 2013 at 8:46 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1411905
where you write
1.
I am retired and so don’t have a job or jobs.
2.
My major activity in my retirement is my work as an Accredited Methodist Preacher by means of which I hope to lead people into light and not darkness.
3.
As a preacher my primary function is to provide people with constructive doubt. That is, my purpose is to challenge people to question their beliefs and, thus, to find more profound beliefs. My decades of employment as a research scientist have given me great awareness of the value of doubt.
Indeed, I was employed as the Senior Material Scientist at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment and, therefore, I never worked at a mine (except to do emergency work during miners strikes), but the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) elected me as their Vice President and confirmed me in that office in five successive elections. BACM knew my priorities, and when I retired as their Vice President they gave me a bust of John Wesley as a tribute to my work.
In this thread have attempted to encourage you to question your own work. That is consistent both with my job when I was a research scientist and my present activity as a preacher. Only when confusion is removed can clarity be obtained so progress can be made. But I have often learned that bigots cannot consider the possibility of their beliefs and understandings being wrong.
Bluster, smears and misrepresentations are a defence mechanism used by people who are unable to confront truth. So, I ask you to ponder on why you choose to use them when you are asked to explain the methods you have used to obtain your hypothesis.
Richard
I qualify as a “climate denier” in alarmist circles, but I’m a pure sceptic, which means although it’s obvious that warming has been “overestimated” for the last 20 years and that the rate of warming is “significantly slower,” even to the point where it’s “not significantly
different from zero,” it’s still warming, not cooling.
RichardSCourtney says
But I have often learned that bigots cannot consider the possibility of their beliefs and understandings being wrong.
Bluster, smears and misrepresentations are a defence mechanism used by people who are unable to confront truth.
Henry says
I am learning a lot about myself on this thread here.
I am a bigot and I am clueless. I realized I am really nasty, too, but I did apologize for that….
In my last comment which you took offence to, I simply meant to say that it does not really matter to me if people do not want to accept my results. Personally, my results freed me from feeling guilty about driving a big car (I have a big truck and my dogs love to go with me anywhere I go, they have the dog house under my canopy). Unfortunately, for reasons I will explain, maybe it does matter now that people come to accept my results, seeing that I have now been put on a mission.
Let me share some thoughts with you. I notice that you also think that doubt is a good beginning for faith. At least we share that same idea
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
which is a good beginning.
I challenged you to produce your own results but you have none. So your right to speak is somewhat diminished. Let me argue this from the other direction, which I have already tried but I think you did not get it.
Let us now look at my results for means and compare it with other data sets. (look at the second table here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
scroll to the bottom)
We are looking at the last results on the bottom of the means table:
for the last 32 years it has been warming at a rate of 0.013 K/annum
which is the same result as the 0.13/decade that Dr. Spencer recently reported for the past 33 years.
For the last 22 years the speed of warming was 0.014K/annum
which is the same as the 0.14 /decade reported in this post here, above.
For the last 12 years it has been cooling at a rate of -0.017 K/annum.
Now look at the trend from 4 major data sets for the past 11 years
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
do you agree with me that the trend downwards is at least -0.1/decade?
So, we have established now, that my results are correct and that they are globally representative – I believe possibly even more globally representative than those other 4 data sets quoted above because I was able to think things through from the beginning.
Do you agree with me, that if the results in one table are comparable with three other parties’ results, then my whole data set must be correct, and that my sample was properly taken and globally representative?
So now I have put the results of the first table (maxima) in a graph , see here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
and you can except that they are right, at least for the blue part. The rest is indeed projection, but from a very high correlation (on a corresponding looking binomial…)
and I say to my self: this is great. It seems I am the only one who has figured this right. But why is this? Why has nobody looked at maxima? Why do I get blocked everywhere when I show this?
In then end I said to myself in frustration: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me.
Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. Please see here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I found confirmation in certain other graphs, that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of cooling, on the bottom of the wave, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl droughts took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind, as was the case in Joseph’s time. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021….
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
So, finally, I read the paper from William Arnold again.
Observe from my a-c curves:
1) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
2) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points
1927, 1972, 2016
Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:
1) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
2) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus
1919, 1965, 2009,
In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign….!!!!
I asked: What is the probability of this not being related to my sine wave which was simply a proposed best fit of mine for the data that I had obtained?
Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well either delaying or extending the normal cycle time a little bit. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
So what is the chance of this all happening to me and what if I did not warn the people about the horrible droughts that will be coming back to the great plains of America again, 2021-2028?
Please help me to spread this message:
WHAT MUST WE DO?
1) We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
2) We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
3) We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!),
God bless you.
Henry
Henry P:
Your own words reveal your certainty in your assertions and your complete lack of ability to substantiate those assertions. But – in common with all others who have such unsubstantiated belief in their own rightness – you say what we “MUST” do.
Well, you can do whatever you want so long as it does not harm others.
And others can, too, so they can ignore you unless and until you provide rational reasons for your assertions.
Richard
HenryP: No system only natural sunlight and its a larger pool about 23000 gallons.
Richardscourteny: Thanks for your BIO, I’m retired as well. 20 Years Air Traffic control and 20+ years computers and networking, though never mixed the two.