Dana Nuccitelli published an article today in The Guardian Does the global warming “pause” mean what you think it means?…a play off a line by Inigo Montoya from “The Princess Bride”. Dana has expressed his misunderstanding of one of the most commonly used metrics of global warming—the surface temperature record. And he continues to display his unwillingness to accept that the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead.
Nuccitelli presents Box 3.1 Figure 1 from Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (my Figure 1).
Figure 1
(See the approved Chapter 3 (Observations: Ocean) of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.)
Nuccitelli writes:
The speed bump only applies to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure? That’s the only part of the climate for which the warming has ‘paused’.
Nuccitelli is correct that the halt in global warming applies to surface temperatures, but he’s incorrect that it applies only to it. The warming of the top 700 meters has also slowed to a crawl, and is nonexistent in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, but more on that later.
The global surface temperature record includes land surface air temperature (measured at 2 meters from the surface) and sea surface temperature measurements. And as a reference, the GISS, NCDC and UKMO global surface temperature products show little (GISS) to no (UKMO & NCDC) warming since January 2001, based on the linear trends. (See Figure 2, which is from the post here.)
Figure 2
Nuccitelli refers his readers to “tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure” (my Figure 1), which is identified by the IPCC as “Atmosphere” in the illustration—not the surface of the oceans.
In their discussion of “Atmosphere” for their Box 3.1, Figure 1, the IPCC explains that the atmospheric component is estimated from lower troposphere and lower stratosphere temperatures, based on satellite measurements. The lower troposphere temperature measurements are from the layer that is approximately 3000 meters above sea level.
The IPCC has NOT presented the heat content for the surface of the oceans in their Box 3.1, Figure 1. The ocean surface warming is included in top 700 meters of ocean warming—not in the atmosphere.
# # #
Further to the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1, Dana Nuccitelli forgot to advise his readers that the data in the IPCC’s graph have been smoothed with a 5-year filter, and that the smoothing would hide the slowdown in warming of the oceans at depths of 0 to 700 meters and 700 to 2000 meters. And he has elected not to tell his readers that the quarterly NODC ocean heat content data for the North Atlantic during the ARGO era continues to show very little warming for depths of 0-2000 meters and cooling at depths of 0-700 meters. (See Figure 3.)
Figure 3
He’s overlooked the fact that the ocean heat content data for the North Pacific show cooling at both levels, with the 0-2000 meter data cooling at a lesser rate than the 0-700 meter data. (See Figure 4.)
Figure 4
(Figures 3 and 4 are from the post here. And the data are available here from the NODC website.)
CO2 is supposed to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas. Obviously, increased CO2 emissions in recent years have had no impact on the ocean heat in the Northern Hemisphere.
# # #
Nuccitelli uses the tired and misleading “atomic bomb” metric:
As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.
The IPCC doesn’t mention Hiroshima atomic bombs anywhere in their Chapter 3; the words “Hiroshima”, “atom”, and “bomb” do not appear in Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s AR5; so don’t think the IPCC is responsible for this nonsensical claim. One would have to assume Nuccitelli is referring to the 0.6 watts/meter^2 imbalance at the surface found in papers like Stephens et al (2013). See Figure 5.
Figure 5
As I wrote in Climate Models Fail:
The total of the downward shortwave (solar) radiation and longwave (infrared) radiation is about 534 watts/meter^2, so the estimated imbalance of 0.6 watts/meter^2 is only about 0.1% of the total downward radiation at the surface. Or, in other words, the total amount of downward radiation at the surface is about 890 times more than the difference. Also note the uncertainty in the imbalance. The estimated imbalance is 0.6 +/- 17 watts/meter^2. That is, the uncertainties are 28 times greater than the estimated value. Bottom line: the surface imbalance may exist or it may not.
Note: Radiative imbalance is the metric that alarmists like to portray in terms of atomic bombs. What the alarmists fail to tell their readers is that sunlight and natural levels of infrared radiation at the surface are almost 890 times the number of atomic bombs they’re claiming, and that the uncertainties in radiative imbalance are 28 times the radiative imbalance.
# # #
Nuccitelli continues to mislead his readers in that article:
Over longer time frames, for example from 1990 to 2012, average global surface temperatures have warmed as fast as climate scientists and their models expected.
As I noted in the post Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State, the modelers had to double the rate of the warming of global sea surface temperatures over the past 31+ years in order to get the modeled land surface air temperatures even close to the observed warming. (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6
So let’s look at the difference between modeled and observed global sea surface temperatures since 1990 to put it into the time period Dana Nuccitelli prefers, Figure 7. “Climate scientists and their models expected” the surface of the global oceans to have warmed at a rate that was almost 3 times faster than observed since 1990.
Figure 7
Three times as fast must mean “as fast as climate scientists and their models expected” in the new climate change doubletalk of global warming enthusiasts.
# # #
Nuccitelli and the global warming enthusiasts from the IPCC like to present global warming in terms that are meaningless to most people, in Joules with lots of zeroes after it. The units in the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1 (my Figure 1) are in Zettajoules or Joules*10^21. But as we’ve illustrated and discussed recently, the warming of the oceans takes on a whole new perspective when we present it in terms familiar to people: deg C. (See Figure 8, which is from the blog post here.) Surface temperatures stopped warming, the warming of the top 700 meters of the oceans has slowed to a crawl, so if there is continued warming at depths of 700 to 2000 meters, it is so miniscule that it’s not coming back to haunt anyone at any time in the future.
Figure 8
# # #
After a long discussion of multidecadal variations in surface temperatures, Nuccitelli’s final paragraph begins:
In terms of the threat from long-term global warming and climate change, it really doesn’t mean anything. It just means that at the moment, more global warming is being absorbed by the oceans, but the next time ocean cycles shift, we’ll experience accelerated surface warming just like we did in the 1990s.
But Nuccitelli misses the obvious. We discussed this in the post Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?:
Most people will also envision the multidecadal variations extending further into the future. That is, they will imagine a projection of future Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures repeating the slight cooling from 1945 to the mid-1970s along with the later warming, followed by yet another slight cooling of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, in a repeat of the past “cycle”. That is, they will envision the surface temperature record repeating itself. And in their minds’ eyes, they see an ever growing divergence between the models and their projections, like the one shown in Figure [9].
Figure 9
FURTHER READING
In my book Climate Models Fail, I have collected my past findings about climate model failings, and illustrated others, and I’ve presented highlights from the research papers critical of climate models—and I “translated” those research findings for persons without scientific or technical backgrounds. And as noted earlier, there is also a discussion of the natural warming of the global oceans. The free preview of Climate Models Fail is available here. It includes the Introduction, Table of Contents and the Closing. Climate Models Fail is available in pdf and Kindle formats. Refer to my blog post New Book: “Climate Models Fail” for further information, the synopsis from the Kindle webpage and purchase/download links.
Ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate the oceans warmed via natural ocean processes, not from manmade greenhouse gases. This has been addressed in dozens of blog posts here and with cross posts at WattsUpWithThat for almost 5 years. I further discussed this in minute detail in my book Who Turned on the Heat? It is only available in .pdf form. A preview is here. Who Turned on the Heat? is described further in, and is available for sale through, my blog post “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About El Niño and La Niña”.
CLOSING
The hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead. Global warming enthusiasts like Dana Nuccitelli and the IPCC just haven’t come to terms with their losses. They should be burying it with dignity, and moving on to greener pastures, but they’re not. They’ve chosen to parade around a failure of science like a pull toy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
BOB,
Great post.
You say that the ‘4 Hiroshima bombs’ that Dana keeps banging on about is probably derived from a surface imbalance of 0.6w/sq.m.
From articles on SKS, Dana and his fellow alarmists don’t appear to claim that downwelling radiation from CO2 actually heats the oceans directly, but that it heats the thin cool-skin surface layer (which is apparently less than 1mm thick), causing a change in the heat gradient across the layer and thus reducing the rate of conductve heat flow through it to atmosphere. Dana himself does not seem to deny that the source of ocean heat is actually insolation.
I have never seen a reference to any paper that confirms quantatively that an imbalace of (say) 0.6 w/sq.m. could cause a change in the conductvity of the thin film layer such that it would reduce heat loss by the equivalent of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.
Dana is really just handwaving on this, but he gets a lot of gullible people enthusiastically waving back. It would therefore be great if you or another contributor to WUWT could show by (even approximate) calculation that the ‘4 Hiroshima bomb’ claim using the ‘thin film’ mechanism, is a fallacy. Sadly, I don’t have the ability to do this, but it would certainly put a timely bomb under a claim that the alarmists are eager to promulgate.
Thanks for the effort, Bob. Another alarmist post is now ready for the “round-file”.
Hey Dana, we sure hope all that ocean heat ends up warming up ENSO waters soon. We seem headed for another December with “the girl”!
Help ! Can one of you mega-brains out there in WUWT-land explain something to me about Figure 5 (Figure 1 in Stephens et al).
Regarding the TOA budget, the error bars are +-0.1 for SW In, +-2 for SW out, and +-3.3 for LW out. It therefore seems to me that the combined error bar for TOA imbalance ought to lie between:
3.3 + 2 + 0.1 = 5.4 i.e. the largest combination of the 3 numbers
and 3.3 – 2 – 0.1 = 1.2 i.e. the smallest combination of the 3 numbers
So how do we arrive at an actual error bar of +- 0.4 ?
Regarding the imbalance at the surface, the fact that the error range is more than an order of magnitude greater than the item we are trying to estimate and that the zero value is very close to the centre of the range means that (1) we have no real idea of what the true imbalance is, and (2) it is almost 50/50 that there is a net outflow meaning there is no missing heat. Is this interpretation of the Figure 5 correct ?
Thanks to anyone who takes the time to educate me on this.
I’m not clear on the point of this post. Nuccitelli’s argument essentially revolves around the IPCC figure 3.1 energy accumulation graph. Bob presents surface data and regional energy accumulation data. Surface data, while of great interest to us surface dweller, being two-dimensional, doesn’t explicitly tell us anything about energy content/accumulation. The regional energy accumulation data showing an apparent northern/southern hemisphere difference is also interesting, raising questions about mechanisms of energy distribution, but doesn’t by itself refute the IPCC “world total” accumulation figure. Unless one can do that, I don’t see how the conclusion “The hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead.” necessarily follows.
Bob your Fig 9 shows projections of the empirical 60 year cycle. You really should project and include the 1000 year cycle as well . See the timing and extent of the coming cooling using the 60 and millennial cycles at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Here’s a summary
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
Still, at least Diana spelt his name right!
Why does Dana have to pick on the poor people of Hiroshima? To make reference to the energy of the bomb that killed and maimed thousands of people and relate it to ocean heat content is sick.
Well. I have no idea how he’s going to get out of this.
If your statement is true…
“How it actually works is that during some periods there’s more heat transferred to the oceans, during others there’s less. It’s not a matter of heat being pumped from oceans to atmosphere, it’s a matter of the oceans absorbing less of the incoming energy. ”
This coupled with the fact that the molten earth core is caused by thermo-nuclear reactions since the earth was formed. Shouldn’t the seas be boiling right now?
Brian says: “Also, Bob largely ignores the ocean from 700-2000m, which is where Dana says heat is increasing most. Bob dodges the point by saying that people can’t understand Joules.”
Obviously, you’ve overlooked Figures 3, 4 and 8 which all include ocean heat content or depth-averaged temperatures to 2000 meters.
Brian says: “Bob spends a lot of time discussing surface temperatures and models, which do not contribute to the main point of Dana’s article.”
Did you read Dana’s article, Brian? Maybe you didn’t understand it. As a preface to my short discussion of climate model failings, I quoted Nuccitelli’s article:
“Over longer time frames, for example from 1990 to 2012, average global surface temperatures have warmed as fast as climate scientists and their models expected.”
Brian says: “In fact Dana says ‘the best climate contrarians can do is find a flat 10-year surface temperature trend’, and Bob’s rebuttal does exactly that.”
Actually, the surface temperature graph with the shortest term in my post presents data for over 12.5 years.
Brian says: “Bob dodges the point by saying that people can’t understand Joules.”
In reality, Brian, I presented the warming of the oceans in my Figure 8 in degrees C to show that the supposed continued warming of the oceans at depths of 700-2000 meters is worthless metric.
Brian says: “I’m not saying that Nuccitelli is correct, but this post does almost nothing to discredit him.”
Considering that your comment broadcasts that you have (1) no grasp of what was presented in this post, or (2) a willingness to misrepresent what was presented, or (3) a combination of 1 and 2, I would have to say your opinion is of no value.
Regards.
this sums it up for me…..
There has been no atmospheric warming for 17 years, because 2.4 billion nuclear bombs worth of heat is hiding in the bottom of the ocean.
This heat at the bottom of the ocean is affecting atmospheric physics through a mysterious mechanism, which actually doesn’t involve any change in heat content of the atmosphere.
The symptoms of this are known as climate change, which has caused all sorts of highly educated people to remark that they don’t remember any windy, hot or rainy days prior to a few months ago.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/understanding-how-the-missing-heat-causes-climate-change/
Peter Miller says:
October 18, 2013 at 7:14 am
“It is common practice for alarmists to muddle up AGW with CAGW. Sceptics should not make the same mistake.”
AGW is not proven – GW occurs, though. Certainly the manifestation of Anthropogenic change as CO2 emissions is being challenged to a significant degree by nature as we write. It’s pretty well indisputable that the last 17 years has illustrated that natural variability easily overwhelms CO2 warming (if there is any) – it stopped and looks like temps can even drop (the more they do, the more they whittle off possible CO2 warming). Moreover, the period of warming widely attributed to humans was really between 1979 and 1998, only 18yrs, and the strong evidence of natural variability makes it a significant candidate for contribution to the warming that took place.
CO2’s affect is challenged by paleo records which show: it rises generally after temperature’s rise, it has been as high as 5000 ppm, even when it was cold. Further, notwithstanding the absorption of LWR, there is evidence (growing of late) that warming (from whatever sources) triggers negative feedbacks to counteract it (Willis Eschenbach’s thermostat papers and others). The compelling evidence of this to me is that the equatorial ocean temperatures, where the largest proportion of solar insolation takes places never exceed 31C. Finally, fiddling recent temperatures up and past temperatures down by several tenths of a degree C accounts for a significant part of the warming. In 1998, 1936 still stood as the all time high at least in the US but it was a globally warm period as well – showing on all temperature charts. GISS deliberately trimmed the 1930s and 40s temps to make 1998 the high. And look at it now – the thirties have been pushed down even further over the past decade. With a cooling period in the works, this fiddling is about to strike back with a vengeance. Having the satellite record limits this chicanery for the future and their already pumped up present day temperatures will exaggerate the cooling in the works. CO2 heating in a jar is a naive proof of AGW in the atmosphere.
Brian says:
October 18, 2013 at 7:50 am
“I’m not sure how this is a rebuttal of Nuccitelli’s article.”
I agree but not for the same reasons I’m sure. Don’t you or Bob segue into “the warming has shifted to the oceans” gambit. The activist hype has always been about atmospheric warming and the disaster it is going to cause. We should be sure to trumpet this when they put out this other junk. They themselves abandoned the label with ‘Climate Change’ but it still was all about the expected 3 to 6C increase to come. Dancing around carrying the goal posts with them is itself proof that the theory has little legs of its own these day – the new stuff is all life support tubes up the nose of the theory.
That’s was in his reply in comment btw.
When is a pause not a pause?
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/hadcrut4-northern-hemisphere-winter-doom/
Northern hemisphere winter temps since 2007
Do you live in the Northern Hemisphere.? Did anyone tell you that in the midst of record CO2 levels HADCRUT4 shows massively dropping winter temperatures?
At the bottom of this post is a graph of HADCRUT4 Northern Hemisphere only temperatures for each month for the last 7 years.
Did you know December was cooling at -.9C per decade? By 2100 December could be 8C colder?
Did you know January was cooling at -.73C per decade?
Did you know March was cooling at -.56C per decade?
Did you know February was cooling at -.19C per decade?
Did you know November was cooling at -.2C per decade?
Did you know October was cooling at -.17C per decade?
Did you know April was cooling at -.17C per decade?
Did you, Dana?
I’d post at CiF but they won’t even let me register any more after I kept unravelling their lies.
Imagine if these guys, these characters were in power (political power, elected and appointed positions and even in various civil service positions throughout government bureaus) … do you suppose they and their fellow travelers would still have the same mindset and keep “close records” of those showing the least signs of opposing them for their views?
I shudder at the thought.
.
HenryP says:
October 18, 2013 at 7:43 am
“It showed to me how close we are to being watched by big brother and how easy it is to ostracize certain people (like in the the nazi period it was jews, we know that in the future it will be those who believe in Christ)”
Carefule there. Nazism was not only a socialist/fascist economic system but also an esoteric neo-pagan religion; nothing to do with Christianity. Look at Thule society, Vril society, connections to Blavatsky. And of course the entirely anti-Christian Eugenicism; invented by the top echelon of atheists, the Darwin clan, themselves, and embraced by all 1920’s socialists on both sides of the Atlantic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_society
@jeremyp99
I checked your blog to see your figures and charts…very interesting compilation of data. I was wondering how the northern hemisphere was trending in temperatures in isolation from the rest of the world. It is the northern hemisphere that has to be watched because when the next glaciation episode comes, that is where the continental ice sheets will form.
Thanks for letting us see your work.
Bob, your reply to me doesn’t really address the points I was making. I could reply to each individual statement, but that would likely be viewed as threadbombing. Just a couple examples:
Brian says: “Also, Bob largely ignores the ocean from 700-2000m, which is where Dana says heat is increasing most. Bob dodges the point by saying that people can’t understand Joules.”
Bob Says: “Obviously, you’ve overlooked Figures 3, 4 and 8 which all include ocean heat content or depth-averaged temperatures to 2000 meters.” and “In reality, Brian, I presented the warming of the oceans in my Figure 8 in degrees C to show that the supposed continued warming of the oceans at depths of 700-2000 meters is worthless metric.”
Your discussions of figures 3-4 revolved around decreases in 0-700m and near-flat trends in 0-2000m, and only the Atlantic. If you are going to rebut Dana’s claim of warming in 700-2000m, then you need to concentrate on that data over the global oceans.
As to your second point, you start with “in reality” and then basically restate my original complaint. I know that you presented warming in degrees C instead of Joules. Immediately beforehand you stated that Zettajoules are “meaningless to most people”. That doesn’t mean you can argue it away by converting the units.
I believe you are stringing together a bunch of red herring arguments that are true on their own, but don’t directly tackle Nuccitelli’s article.
Repeated here on WUWT is a comment I made on Climate Audit in response to a remark made by Craig Loehle on Steve McIntyre’s “Fixing the Facts 2” thread concerning the width of the IPCC/AR5 expanded modeling envelope:
Coming from the “one picture is worth a million words” department, I thought it might be a useful exercise in the visual interpretation of graphical information to combine IPCC/AR5 Figure 1.4 with the Hadley Center’s graph of Central England Temperature (CET), 1772-2013, placing both graphics onto one common page.
This exercise is yet another phase in my ongoing efforts to expand my “CET is Anything and Everything” climate science paradigm into uncharted visual communications territory.
A major characteristic of the CET-is-Anything-and-Everything paradigm is the assumption that pre-2007 rates of temperature change in the CET historical record can be used as rough predictive indicators for post-2007 GMST rates of change — at least to the extent of stating that similar rates of change have been experienced within the past 240 years which cover similar (or longer) time frames as does the AR5 2013-2035 predictive time frame of twenty-five to thirty years.
Here it is: AR5 Figure 1.4 and CET 1772-2013
The illustration has two major graphical elements:
-> The first major graphical element, located in the upper-left quarter section of the illustration, displays an adaptation of IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4 which highlights the boundaries of the “AR5 Expanded Modeling Envelope”; i.e. that section of the original Figure 1.4 which illustrates the observation validation zone between the year 2001 and the year 2035 of past IPCC model runs. Overlain on the Figure 1.4 adaptation is a series of seven temperature rate-of-change trend lines spaced in 0.1 degree increments, each of which begins in the year 2007, and each of which also has a historical precedent in the Central England Temperature record.
-> The second major graphical element, which is shaded in light gray and which covers approximately three-quarters of the illustration, documents the method which was used to visually fit the approximate slopes of the seven CET temperature trends occurring between 1772 and 1975 which are being used as the historical CET precedents. A third graphic illustrating Global Mean Temperature between 1850 and 2008 is also included for visual reference and comparison. The original source graphics for CET and for GMT are from the Hadley Center. Their respective x and y axis scales have both been modified to be proportionately similar to AR5 Figure 1.4′s x and y axis scales.
Let’s remark here that the Central England Temperature record is the only instrumental record we have that goes back as far as it does; and that its recent temperature trends are approximately reflective of recent global temperature trends.
Concerning the derivation of my own graphical adaptations of the IPCC and Hadley Center source graphics, the process by which the slopes of historical CET trend lines were determined is readily evident from direct examination of the illustration, without any further explanation other than to clarify that all fitting of trend slopes was done by visually placing each linearized trend line onto the original HadCET source plot wherever it was appropriate in the CET record for the particular decadal rate of change being fitted: -0.1C, -0.03C, +.03C, +0.1C, +0.2C, +0.3C, or +0.4C
Several points become immediately evident from a casual look at this one-page graphical illustration:
(1) GMST could fall at a rate of -0.03 C per decade between 2007 and 2021 and still remain inside the AR5 model validation envelope.
(2) GMST could stay flat between 2007 and 2028 — i.e., have a trend of 0 C per decade for a period of 21 years — and still remain inside the AR5 model validation envelope.
(3) A small upward trend of +0.03 C per decade is the approximate rate of change in CET for the period of 1772 through 2007, a period of 235 years. GMST could rise with that same small upward trend of +0.03 C per decade for another 28 years beyond 2007 and still remain inside the AR5 model validation envelope.
(4) For the timeframe covering the period between 2007 and 2035, GMST could experience a rising temperature trend of anywhere from +0.03 per decade on up to +0.4 C per decade, while still remaining within the scope of past historical precedents documented in the Central England Temperature record for similar periods of time.
(5) Rates of CET temperature change which covered time periods of at least twenty-five years, and which ranged from a low of -0.1 C per decade on up to a high of +0.4 C per decade, occurred at pre-industrial levels of CO2.
What does it all mean?
It means we have seen it all before, and we will probably see it all again; i.e., there is nothing new under the sun.
All up now, in quadruplicate – Anthony
Henry says
I was just checking up how you did it.
SkepticGoneWild says:
October 18, 2013 at 8:54 am
“To make reference to the energy of the bomb that killed and maimed thousands of people and relate it to ocean heat content is sick.”
I agree. They also have no problem equating their opponents with Holocaust deniers. These are sick puppies.
jim says
Imagine if these guys, these characters were in power (political power, elected and appointed positions and even in various civil service positions throughout government bureaus) … do you suppose they and their fellow travelers would still have the same mindset and keep “close records” of those showing the least signs of opposing them for their views?
I shudder at the thought.
DirkH says
And of course the entirely anti-Christian Eugenicism; invented by the top echelon of atheists, the Darwin clan, themselves, and embraced by all 1920′s socialists on both sides of the Atlantic.
henry says
yes, that ship with Eugenicism was also exported to the USA and South Africa where it became know as segregation and apartheid, respectively. What a (spiritual) battle we had with that…..
And…we know it is going to happen again; it is what the book of Revelations is all about, is it not?
This time it will be global. Only one religion will be allowed.
An interesting aspect maybe that Hitler came to power at the height of the cooling period, 1935-1945 when food prices rose due to scarcity.
A similar situation will of course arise again due to global cooling from 2024-2034
I’m still waiting for somebody to explain to me how heat is supposed to be getting into the deep ocean (where conveniently we have few thermometers) without passing through the shallower layers that we do monitor closely. My understanding of thermodynamics must be flawed.
Might I add to my previous comment that there is ample evidence in Revelations that the next anti-christ will in fact be a woman and not a man.
Everyone will also be linked with a device (Rev. 13:15)
Perhaps Dana with realize the death of the AGW hypothesis when something like this happens:
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3045027328/h1585F40B/
Surely, as the ocean has so much more heat capacity than the air (1000 times or so?), if there were any temperature changes over the last decade in the ocean due to GHG, they would be far too small to measure.
Indeed, Professor Ted Shepherd at Reading University admitted
The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there,”
So any claims that this is measurable cannot be taken seriously.