The Epistemology of Explaining Climate Forecasting so an 8 Year Old Can Understand it

Guest essay by Dr. Norman Page

 1.  Introduction

Dr. Leif Svalgaard said in a comment on a WUWT post:

August 17, 2015 at 2:27 pm    

“If you cannot explain your finding to an [attentive] eight-year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”
I agree entirely.
Miriam – Webster defines Epistemology as
” the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity “
epistemology
2.  Granddaughter – You asked – Is the world going to burn up and how do we know?
Ava – Lets  think about when  the temperature is warmer and colder outside. It is hotter when the sun shines during the day and colder at night when our part of the earth is turned away from the sun .You know already that it takes 24 hours for the earth to turn around once to make what we call a cycle from warm to cold and back again.
You also know that it is much hotter in summer than winter and that is because the sun shines longer   and is higher in the sky in summer than in winter. Each year there is a cycle  from warm to cold and back again which takes 365 days.Scientists have  measured or estimated in various ways what the earth’s temperature was  back for hundreds and thousands of years and  can see that there are other hot – cold cycles. Two of the most important ones have cycle lengths of about 60 and 1000 years. Here is a picture showing some of the 1000 year cycles.
Fig 1 (http://www.climate4you.com/)  -(See Humlum’s overview section)
To know what is going to happen in the future we first  have to know where the earth is in the 1000 year temperature cycle. Here is another picture that shows what the temperatures were in the northern part of the earth over the last 2000 years. Look especially at what happened during the last 1000 years.
See the warm peak at the year 1000 – then look where we are now at the right hand side of the picture. You can see that the earth is just getting near to, is just at or just past the peak warmth of a 1000 year cycle.
How can we tell which it is. We know that the amount of sunshine which reaches our bit of the earth often changes the temperature by tens of degrees between night and day and as much as 100 degrees sometimes between cold winter nights and the hottest summer days. We also know that the sun itself puts out more energy and its magnetic field is stronger at the activity peaks of its various  cycles.
What is the sun doing now? Here is a picture that shows us what has been going on.
You can see that sun itself also has cycles of activity of 11-12 years in length. When the red line gets nearer to the bottom of the picture the sun is more active, its magnetic field is stronger and fewer Galactic Cosmic Rays hit the earth.

Fig 3 ( http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/       )

You can see that  solar activity was increasing , that is, the red line  got closer to the bottom of the picture, in each cycle until about 1991 and that the solar  cycle peaks and lows since then are closer to the top of the picture showing a decline in solar activity. This suggests that the 1000 year peak in solar activity may  now be behind us in about 1991.
Because it takes some time for the oceans to warm up and cool down, there is a delay before  the peak in solar activity  shows itself in the earth’s temperature. The best measure we have of global temperatures is made by satellites. Here is a picture of how temperatures have changed in the satellite age.
Fig 4
You  can see how the 1991 peak in solar activity in Fig 3 shows up in the peak in the average global temperatures  ( the green rising  and blue- falling lines) about 12 years later  at 2003 in Fig 4. and that the earth has been cooling slightly since then just as the solar activity declined from 1991 to today.
Ava – you ask.- What about the future.?
Well the simplest and most likely  guess for starters  is that the 1000 year cycle from 2003 – 3003 will have a temperature curve whose general shape is similar to the cycle from 1000 – 2003. see  Fig 2 .
If you look at that Figure again you can see that the Northern Hemisphere average temperature cooled by a bit under 2 degrees from 1000 to about 1635 so that we might expect a similar cooling from 2003 to 2638 – of course with various ups and downs along the way .
The warm peak at about 1000 was a good time for people when the Vikings were able to live  in Greenland.  Harvests  were good and  people in Europe had time  and money to spare to start building cathedrals  The cold period around 1635 – to 1700 is called the Maunder Minimum when the Sun was so quiet that the Sun  spots disappeared. Most people living before about 1850 grew their own food. Before then, if  just a few extra- cold years followed one after the other, millions of people starved to death because their harvests failed.
Man made CO2 had no effect on these temperature changes. In fact President Obama is very wrong to call CO2 a pollutant. It is the absolutely essential plant food. Without it life as we know it could not exist. Plants grow better as CO2 increases. About 25% of the increase in food production in the 20th century was due simply to the increase in CO2 in those years –  a great benefit to mankind.
Ava asks – the blue line is almost flat. – When will we know for sure that we are on the down slope of the thousand year cycle and heading towards another Little Ice Age.
Grandpa says- I’m glad to see that you have developed an early interest in Epistemology. Remember ,I mentioned the 60 year cycle, well, the data shows that the temperature peak in 2003 was close to a peak in both that cycle and the 1000 year cycle. If we are now on the downslope of the 1000 year cycle then the next peak in the 60 year cycle at about 2063 should be lower than the 2003 peak and the next 60 year peak after that  at about 2123 should be lower again, so, by that time ,if the peak  is lower,  we will be pretty sure that we are on our way to the next little ice age.
 That is a long time to wait, but we will get some useful  clues a long time before that.Look again at the red curve in  Fig 3 – you can see that from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2009 solar activity dropped to the lowest it has been for a long time. Remember the 12 year delay between the 1991 solar activity peak and the 2003 temperature peak, if there is a similar delay in the response to lower solar activity , earth  should see a cold spell from  2019 to 2021 when you will be in Middle School.
It should  also be noticeably cooler at the coolest part of the 60 year cycle – halfway through  the present 60 year cycle at about 2033.
We can watch for these things to happen but meanwhile  keep in mind that the overall cyclic trends can be  disturbed  for a time in some years  by the El Nino weather patterns in the Pacific and the associated high temperatures that we see in for example  1998 and 2010  (fig 2) and that we might see  before the end of this year- 2015.
3. Ava says -It looks like the Earth is going to cool down- Why is my teacher and  President Obama saying the earth is going to get very hot and the Polar Bears are all going to die
unless I walk to school ?
Well Ava – I would have to write a book to explain how so many different people came to be so wrong for so long about so much- sometimes with the best of intentions. Here is a short story telling what happened.
In 1968 a man called Ehrlich published a book called the Population Bomb. He thought the number of people on earth was growing so fast that there soon wouldn’t be enough food to feed everybody, He said in the book.
 In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate” 
Some people at the time got very worried and put their guesses about such things as future population growth, food production ,oil supplies, industrial production and mineral reserves into a computer program.. They intended to look at possible future problems and also  explore the possibility  that the peoples and governments of the earth could agree on a way of running the worlds economy  that could besustainable, that is, go on for a long time. They put all this in a book called The Limits to Growth published in 1972.
 A very energetic business man called Maurice Strong who knew a lot of very influential people persuaded the United Nations that, as he himself believed and indeed still strongly believes,  this sustainability problem was very serious.The UN and Sweden organized a meeting in 1972 in Stockholm to discus the interaction of humans with the environment. Strong was appointed  by his UN friend U Thant , to be  the General Secretary of the meeting. Strong,  by nature, is very determined and action oriented and he and the conference produced an incredibly detailed 109 point  action plan designed to give the UN input and even control over individual Government environmental  policies world wide. As  one of the actions, the United Nations Environmental Program  ( UNEP) was organized in 1973 with Mr Strong himself as Executive Director.
Ten years later it was obvious that the predictions of imminent death and disaster were wrong. The people at UNEP still wanted to take global control of the worlds economy. They realized that if they could show that the CO2 ( carbon dioxide) produced by burning coal and oil to make electricity and drive our cars might cause a dangerous warming of the earth they would  be able to scare the Governments and people into writing laws giving the UN ( and them) control over the world’s economy by controlling the type of energy used and its price.
UNEP organized a meeting of scientists at a place called Villach in Austria in 1985 to see if they could show that CO2 was dangerous. The scientists said
“Although the observed global-scale warming experienced over the past ~100 years is compatible with model estimates of the magnitude of the greenhouse effect, unequivocal, statistically convincing detection of the effects of changing CO2 and trace gas levels on climate is not yet possible. An important problem in the positive identification of a greenhouse gas effect on climate is to explain the medium to long time scale (~decades or more) fluctuations in the past record. Attempts to model such changes have, to date, suffered from a number of deficiencies.”
Ava – In other words they couldn’t prove  any effects of man made  CO2 on climate.
But whoever  wrote the official summary statement and recommendations said:
“As a result of the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is now believed that in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man’s history. “
The report made two important recommendations. As a result of one ,the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to select from the  evidence and from time to time produce reports which would show that CO2 was the main driver of dangerous climate change and a second recommendation resulted in a meeting in Rio in 1992 chaired by Maurice Strong himself which produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , later signed by 196 governments.
The objective of the treaty is to keep greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed  would prevent dangerous man made  interference with the climate system.
This treaty is really a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
It says :
“The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the

causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or

irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing

such measures”

In other words if the models show there  is even a small chance of very bad things happening the Governments who signed the treaty should act now  to stop it. But how good are the  computer Models?

The successive five  reports of the IPCC  in the Summaries for Policymakers written by Government representatives  have clamed increasing certainty for the outcomes of their Model based projections  of future temperature which is not supported by  the Science sections of the reports or the actual data.

Remember the Villach meeting said
 “in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man’s history.”
All the models and projections made since 1985  were built in the assumption that CO2 was the main climate change driver- for that and for many other reasons they are in reality useless for forecasting future temperatures.
Here is a picture of what really happened as CO2 levels rose rapidly in the 21st century
As you can see there has been no global warming at all since about 1997.
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year cycles so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers  approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale.
 The temperature  projections of the IPCC –  UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.  As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless.
 Here is a picture which shows the sort of  thing  they did when they projected a cyclic trend in a straight line..
 
 A new forecasting method needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at
(Section 1 has a complete discussion of the uselessness of the climate models.)
“In the Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge) Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. The fourth of these were described as :
Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.”
Climate science has fallen victim to this fourth type of idol.
Advertisements

196 thoughts on “The Epistemology of Explaining Climate Forecasting so an 8 Year Old Can Understand it

  1. I stopped reading at the “cycle from 2003 to 3003” Four place accuracy doesn’t belong in climate science.

    • He’s talking to his grand daughter and you quibble about significant digits. It takes away from the picture he is drawing for her to start hemming and hawing about the 1000-year cycle being “around” 1000 years.

    • You “stopped reading” because you wanted to get your idiotic non sequiteur comment in first. Congrats.

    • I started losing interest at about the same point. Not because of sig.figs but that assertion that the very speculative “1000y cycle” exists and will reproduce itself again.
      Pumping out this kind of non-scientific hypothesis as fact to a young and impressionable mind of the supposed 8 year old is despicable. This is just as bad as the indoctrination that is currently going on our schools. It is not any more acceptable simply because the message is a non AGW one.
      Honestly, this article is junk science of the same kind that I would expect to see on SkS and the likes. WUWT is going down hill rapidly with a number of very poor science articles recently.
      Very disappointing.

      • No doubt a justified comment. Probably the only significant quibble would be selecting a thousand year cycle that has about 2 repetitions is considerably better than Ben Santer building a projection of the slope of a quarter of 70 year cycle that has more repetitions and of course everybody else who swallows it including SKS..

      • Figure 1 shows about 7 long-term cycles in 11,000 years. That’s excellent evidence of a supercycle, and calling it 1,000 years is shorthand. It is plausible.

    • You can see how the 1991 peak in solar activity in Fig 3 shows up in the peak in the average global temperatures ( the green rising and blue- falling lines) about 12 years later at 2003 in Fig 4. and that the earth has been cooling slightly since then just as the solar activity declined from 1991 to today.

      Frankly garbage. Why the cherry-picked linear trend periods? No explanation other that it fits ad hoc to the writer’s argument.
      Why “about 12y later” ? Why does the supposed 11y cycle show up with a 12y lag. Where is the evidence for such an effect? This is just meaningless bunk made up to fit a very vague hypothesis.
      This, sadly, is even less convincing than AGW.
      Highly unimpressed with “Doctor” Norman Page on this.

      • I agree Mike. The conclusion may or may not be correct, but the reasoning, to the extent it relies on non existing solar data and a speculative solar peak is deeply flawed. Human beings love and need to tell stories, but scientists should resist the temptation.

      • The post explains the delay .It says
        “Because it takes some time for the oceans to warm up and cool down, there is a delay before the peak in solar activity shows itself in the earth’s temperature. The best measure we have of global temperatures is made by satellites. Here is a picture of how temperatures have changed in the satellite age.
        See also Fig 3
        at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005ESASP.560…19U/0000021.000.html
        All interpretations of data sets are cherry picked one way or the other. The key to good science is having the insight to do the best cherry picking. The future course of events is the only arbiter of who picked correctly

        • The key to good science is having the insight to do the best cherry picking
          Most cherry picking is based on wishful thinking…
          ‘Insight’ comes after the data picked, not before.

      • Leif and Mike Understanding the past climate is the key to making predictions of the future. You incorporate as wide a range of knowledge as possible in order to make a coherent narrative. This is how the Geological Time scale is put together for example. Mike calls this Ad Hoc – I say exactly -that is how you stick close to the Ad Hoc- ie empirical data. It is like doing a jig saw and fitting as many bits together as you can till you begin to grasp the picture a whole. If you stand too close to a pointillist painting you can’t see the picture for the dots.
        The Milankovic cycles are observable in the Geological record back for hundreds of millions of years. The 60 year cycles are evident certainly since about 1880 and as for the millennial cycles I think the evidence is persuasive,- you don’t. As to proof only time will tell. I said
        “Remember ,I mentioned the 60 year cycle, well, the data shows that the temperature peak in 2003 was close to a peak in both that cycle and the 1000 year cycle. If we are now on the downslope of the 1000 year cycle then the next peak in the 60 year cycle at about 2063 should be lower than the 2003 peak and the next 60 year peak after that at about 2123 should be lower again, so, by that time ,if the peak is lower, we will be pretty sure that we are on our way to the next little ice age.
        That is a long time to wait, but we will get some useful clues a long time before that. Look again at the red curve in Fig 3 – you can see that from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2009 solar activity dropped to the lowest it has been for a long time. Remember the 12 year delay between the 1991 solar activity peak and the 2003 temperature peak, if there is a similar delay in the response to lower solar activity , earth should see a cold spell from 2019 to 2021 when you will be in Middle School.
        It should also be noticeably cooler at the coolest part of the 60 year cycle – halfway through the present 60 year cycle at about 2033.
        We can watch for these things to happen but meanwhile keep in mind that the overall cyclic trends can be disturbed for a time in some years by the El Nino weather patterns in the Pacific and the associated high temperatures that we see in for example 1998 and 2010 (fig 2) and that we might see before the end of this year- 2015.”

    • I am not disappointed in the comments, it was only after I pushed the “Post Comment” button that I realized that picking ’03 instead of ’14 or ’15 didn’t make sense. I wondered if he had this conversation with the girl over a decade ago. A very quick check didn’t lead me to believe that was the case. So I am left with; why was ’03 used?

      • Probably the same reason “climate scientists” used the terms “since records began in 1978”, “since records began in 1967”, “since records began in 1942”, “since records began in 1910” etc.

  2. Norman, what a fantastic essay. I have been e regular on WUWT for several years and I did not know this quote existed
    ” lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures”
    I have said this before but will say it again. The UN is acting very much like the EU in attempting to govern multiple countries, by stealth. Both the UN and EU are fixated with AGW scares as a means of control, it can be the only logical reason why safe nuclear power (by uranium or thorium) is not higher on the research agenda. They know AGW is not happening.
    Once you control the energy supply of a country, you control that country.

      • That is interesting, thanks for the link. Just scanning this stopped me:
        “Sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth is essential for prosperity. This will only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed. We will work to build dynamic, sustainable, innovative and people-centred economies, promoting youth employment and women’s economic empowerment, in particular, and decent work for all. . . . We will strengthen the productive capacities of least developed countries in all sectors, including through structural transformation. . . .
        28. We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services. Governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-State actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns, including through the mobilization, from all sources, of financial and technical assistance to strengthen developing countries’ scientific, technological and innovative capacities to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production. We encourage the implementation of the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns. All countries take action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries.
        29. We recognize the positive contribution of migrants for inclusive growth and sustainable development. We also recognize that international migration is a multidimensional reality of major relevance for the development of countries . . .”
        In other words we will control what you produce and how you produce and who gets the wealth thereby generated. Moreover we will move populations around the world to optimize our plan for sustainable production. This is a totalitarian socialist’s dream manifesto for the world complete with 10 year plans (I suppose to distinguish it from the USSR’s famous 5 year plans). How in the world did they get so many countries to sign it? And why didn’t the USSR think of doing this long ago when they were trying to do the same thing?

      • Any time I see stuff like this discussed, I think of this quote by Robert Heinlein:
        “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
        This is known as “bad luck.”
        Socialism is doomed mathematically. The “each according to their needs” phrase belies this. This is because needs only come into existence once somebody “wants” something. Need air, water, food? Only if you want to stay alive. And wants are infinite. I’d like to experience continual weightlessness, or better yet, orbit Jupiter and watch the storms visible on the surface. No socialistic society is going to provide for my “need” for a rocket. What a socialistic government does do is limit the things you can want because they have to deal with the allocation of scarce resources, made even more scarce by their policies. If they do that, it kills all the incentives for investing in skills that allow one to advance economically and hence no one will put the effort to develop “abilities” if the rewards are redistributed to the people with “needs”. See the chapter in Atlas Shrugged on the Twentieth Century Automobile Company. This chapter isn’t totally on point as the employees of a socialized company still at least have the freedom to quit and go somewhere else, which isn’t the case if the whole world is socialized. Thus, those who have abilities become the slaves of those with the needs. Not a pretty picture.

      • The whole sustainability argument of Strong is weak.
        Sustainable doesn’t mean millions of tons of stainless steel and thousands of hectares of bird/bat killing windmills.
        Sustainable means more of the life giving anthropogenic CO2 that is providing.almost 40% of our food.

    • “Once you control the energy supply of a country, you control that country.”
      You are so correct Andrew. During WW2 hundreds of lives were lost trying to destroy the fuel refinerys in Polesti and other places to shutdown the weapons that were powered by fuel.

      • The whole of the North African campaign was fought over Middle Eastern oil, and the ability to use the Suez Canal to get that oil back to Britain. Nothing runs without oil. Except if you are a Greeny, of course, and then you can use fairy faarts and unicorn poop.

      • Robin I have just read that document from the UN; frightening!
        James Francisco, yes WW2 did spring to mind!
        John G, exactly the same conclusion I came to, do these people never learn from history? Even China has turned its back on communism and embraced capitalism. I am currently in Spain (Marbella). Full of wealthy Russians (they even have Russian estate agents out here!)
        I agree totally with all the UN said about increasing prosperity, eradicating poverty, making sure that no-one on the planet is hungry or thirsty, everyone is educated etc etc. You cannot achieve these aims by taking money from the “wealthy” and giving it to the “poor”, all that does is ensure that they stay poor. You teach the poor how to become wealthy, which cannot be done by making the world, energy impoverished.
        I suggest that the UN is no longer fit for purpose.

      • andrewmharding ……
        Not only in Marbella but all along of the Northern Mediterranean from Cyprus to Gibraltar, in the south of France there are many thousands of Russians taking advantage of the depressed French property market, and converting bankers digital virtual money into the real estate. Chinese are now learning the lesson that the digits of s.c. ‘stock market’ held on some anonymous server somewhere, do not equal appeal of the brick and mortar in an advanced western democracy.

    • A “governing body” which controls the resources controls humanity by default. It is only natural.

    • The UN was created to prevent another world war. The first two were contests of wealth, industrial productivity and population – a virtuous circle. The way to break that circle is waste, by any and all means; aristocracies, tribute, aid, lending, borrowing, fines, compensation, regulation, bureacracy, inefficiency, fraud, etc, all destroy wealth.

      • Wake up Sleepalot. The UN indeed was created to prevent another war (there are more wars raging than before), however, under the gradual usurpation by neo or maybe paleo Kmarksysts the institution was converted to a pure political agenda – largely committed to wiping out the US as an economic bastion to the world and the proof that US freedom and free enterprise created this economic bounty for the entire world.
        When the iron curtain came down, there were a lot of happy people grateful to have escaped the SRs, but also apparatchiks who didn’t have any other skills but to subjugate people. They found ready employment in a soshulist EU, the burgeoning bureaucracy of the UN and positions as professors in ‘social sciences’ in western universities including the US of A. Witness the crescendo of questioning of democracy, freedom of speech, free enterprise in the US! The first generations of US students transformed in the groupthink factories of K-Graduate School are the ones with the placards. I’m sure the Romans were hated 2000 yrs ago for exactly the same reason – their sterling success in all fields.
        The irony is the US membership in diabolical bureaucracy aiming to destroy it and even paying the lion’s share for it. The rest of the world is wrong to destroy this vital economic engine. The jury is still out on whether the rest of the world is wrong that the US is generally oversupplied with stupid people or not as openly discussed by the EU chattering classes.

  3. You can see that solar activity was increasing , that is, the red line got closer to the bottom of the picture, in each cycle until about 1991 and that the solar cycle peaks and lows since then are closer to the top of the picture showing a decline in solar activity. This suggests that the 1000 year peak in solar activity may now be behind us in about 1991.
    Here is a plot of solar activity the past 400 years (the top graph shows the magnetic field strength in the solar wind, the middle panel shows the modulation of cosmic rays, and the bottom panel shows the average number of sunspot groups per year since 1610):
    http://www.leif.org/research/Usoskin-et-al-2015.png
    There is no evidence that we are ‘close to the 1000 year peak’ or of such a peak in general. Any 8-yr old can see and understand that right away. And can also understand that your Figure 3 covers a time much too short to say anything about a 1000-yr cycle.

    • With all due respect, Mr. lsvalgaard
      “Any 8-yr old can see and understand that right away”
      Please…………The Common Core Program has destroyed the literacy of every 8-yr old in the U.S.A.

      • But has it boosted their esteem so that they think they’re smrt because they can quickly look up anything with Google?

    • Whilst I can see where you are going with your comment, which is based upon the plots you set out, but you fail to explain how the magnetic field strength was measured some 400 years ago. Whilst something was known of the properties of magnetism, it was not until the 1800s that significant strides were taken.
      The same applies to cosmic rays.
      Surely, the truth is that since there were no direct observational measurements of these phenomena, we can only guess (you may consider the guess to be an educated one) as to the level of magnetism and/or cosmic rays as from 1600.
      Personally, I take all proxies with a large pinch of salt.

      • From the magnetic measurements since the 1830s we see that [and there is a physical reason for this] the variation of the magnetic field depends on the [square root of the] sunspot number. The cosmic ray modulation depends on that magnetic field and so can be determined as well as derived from ice core and tree ring data. Now, if you argue that we have no way of knowing those things, you are supporting my argument that there is no evidence for a 1000-yr cycle.

      • From the magnetic measurements since the 1830s we see that [and there is a physical reason for this] the variation of the magnetic field depends on the [square root of the] sunspot number.

        But what is the source of the modulation of the Solar cycle?
        The cycle in 1907 is very interesting.

      • Dr Svalgaard
        Thank you for your further insight. I am aware from previous comments of yours that it appears that there may be a square root relationship between the strength of magnetic field and sunspots, but whether that is coincidental (being a good approximation covering only the period for which we have good direct observational data on both sunspot numbers and magnetic field), or whether it is a universal law may yet fall to be established (although I take on board your view that there are physical reasons supporting such a relationship)..
        I am open minded as to whether there may be a an approximate 1000 year cycle, but consider that the data set out in this article falls short of what I would require to convince myself of the existence of such cycle. I am not surprised that you question the existence of such cycle and the strength of evidence in support of such.
        As you are aware, man has a lust to find patterns, when no such pattern in reality exists, but then again in nature, it is often that there are cyclical changes, or changes that occur with some approximate periodicity.

      • lsvalgaard
        August 31, 2015 at 9:12 am
        And the solar wind-modulated cosmic ray flux on earth in turn modulates the availability of cloud condensation nuclei, which modulates cloudiness, which affects climate.

      • The association looks good until 2004. There are other sources of CCNs besides those created by cosmic rays, and factors which can reduce them even in the presence of higher flux.

        • It fails going back in time. But a myth is hard to escape. People believe because they want to believe, not because they are compelled to do so by actual data.

      • The data are highly supportive during the decades-long solar minima of the past, eg the Maunder and Dalton.

      • As an imaginary 8th year old said to me:
        Uncle Vuk, you show that the sun’s observations go only about 400 years, in that time the sun has gone up and down many times, most of time about every 11 years. Then I see it did it three times, and looks like it is going to do it again every 100 year or a bit more and that is about nine and half times 11. What is 9.5 x 100 and a bit, I think it may be somewhere about 1000, wouldn’t you agree.
        Uncle Vuk, my teacher told us if you look through a window from inside out, you cant see all around you, and I think if you look through 400 year window you can’t see whole of 1000 years behind you.
        Is my teacher wrong?

      • “Every time we have included more data back in time, the relation has been confirmed, so there is little doubt that it is physical and not coincidental.”
        Leif, I suspect nothing will convince richard verney.

      • Leif
        It fails going back in time. But a myth is hard to escape. People believe because they want to believe, not because they are compelled to do so by actual data.
        _____________________________________
        People ‘believe’ because current metrology and astronomy does not have an answer. Any 8-year old can see an 1100-year cycle in temperature, and rationally presume that there must be a reason, rather than this being pure chance.
        Since science cannot give a reason, it is logical that people will look for an explanation in various likely locations. Cloud nucleation is one possible explanation, that has not been proven or disproven.
        Ralph

      • hockeyschtick
        August 31, 2015 at 10:35 am
        So, not a myth then.
        Appreciate your keeping readers up to date on latest research.
        Interesting that the more “adjusted” American “surface station” “data” sets don’t show the relationship, while HadCRU does. Another measure of the degree of manipulation in these so-called “surface” temperature series.
        Thanks!

        • He starts out with:
          “In 1996 the unexpected discovery was announced that the intensity of Galactic cosmic rays incident on the Earth’s atmosphere correlates closely with variations of global cloud cover” This is the ‘discovery’ that has been debunked by the data taken since.
          The Forbush Decrease connection also does not hold up, e.g.
          “Following on previous work by others, which gave evidence for few days’ changes in the European Diurnal Temperature Range (DTR) apparently correlated with Cosmic Ray Forbush Decreases, we have made an independent study. We find no positive evidence. ”
          http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/982539/

        • The link concludes:
          “We show specifically that CR cannot explain secular warming.”
          Hence CRs are not the major driver of ‘global warming’ or climate change in general.
          This is consistent with the fact that solar activity has gone down the past half-century, so CRs have gone up [which according to the enthusiasts predicts cooling], but the temperatures have gone up, thus invalidating the claim that CRs [and thus solar activity] is a major driver and the cause of ‘global warming’.

      • GCR flux modulation by solar activity might well not be a major driver on short time scales, and maybe not even on longer intervals (although see Svensmark above on the 100 million year frame). However, combined with other solar fluctuations, such as the UV component of TSI, which as you know varies widely, the combined effects could be significant.

      • The time of a secular v. cyclic or periodic trend depends upon the phenomenon being observed. In climate, a secular trend could be decades or centuries, but if the phenomenon being investigated be, for example, ice ages or ice houses v. hot houses, then secular could mean tens or hundreds of millions of years and cyclic might mean hundreds of thousands.
        In investing, secular usually does mean, as you suggest, over a decade, composed of shorter cycles or counter trends. A secular bear market trend for instance typically will include at least one counter-cycle, in this case a bull cycle.

    • Surely an 8 year old will notice that solar activity has gone up from 1900 to 1960 and come down since then… Right?

    • I agree with Leif that the data doesn’t support the notion of a 1000 year peak. This solar data matches that recent temperatures have not been significantly warmer than they have been for the last couple of hundred years. Therefore, the top post is an example of the human need to tell a story to explain various unaccounted for facts & perceptions.
      However, as the main source of energy, surely we can agree that significant changes in solar output would probably affect the earth thermodynamics in some way. The period 16nn-17mm does seem to correspond roughly to lower temperatures (appropriately time lagged).
      Even if we don’t yet understand the science fully, we can predict with some confidence that another ice age is imminent. When it does start to occur (sometime in the next millennium?), we’ll have good solar output measurements and a distant descendent of Dr. Svalgaard will publish an awesome paper about it.
      Until then, we’re just telling stories…

      • Actually, the Sun is slowly warming up [due to its evolution, burning hydrogen to helium], but the orbit and orientation of the Earth is changing towards conditions probably giving us another glaciation in about 50,000 year [not before].

      • Many observers of Milankovitch Cycles agree with you that the Holocene will be another super-interglacial, like those of around 400,000 and 800,000 years ago, based primarily upon the eccentricity cycle.
        This raises the possibility of natural “catastrophic” global warming, in which, given enough time, all or part of the Southern Dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet could melt.
        However IMO that’s less likely for this interglacial, even if it does last 60,000 years rather than the more common ten to 20 thousand, because interglacials usually enjoy their peak warmth early on. Even the Holocene optimum was weak compared to previous interglacials, such as the last one, the Eemian. It’s possible but IMO unlikely that the Holocene will enjoy its peak warmth late in its life.
        Without a substantially warmer episode in the future, the GIS is not liable to melt away even with 50,000 more years in which to do so. The Southern Dome lost perhaps a fourth of its mass during the Eemian, which lasted 5000 years longer than the Holocene so far, but was a few to several degrees warmer in the latitude of Greenland.

      • An extra 49k years would be nice. However, until we understand the causes better (I suspect Vulcanism plays a part), a prediction of “not before” seems like a reassuring bed time story.
        Just as ancient man could predict with some confidence the sun rising and summer coming, even though he didn’t understand the actual mechanism, so we can do the same based on history.
        For example, based on this image, a long interglacial was about 10k years, and we seems to be approaching that now. Just my speculative story.

        • Yes, it is now cooling [has been for several thousand years, but it takes tens of thousands of year of steady cooling to get down to an extensive glaciation as your Figure so nicely shows.

      • Leif, there is not a lot of resolution, but it seems like the delay between temperature drop and ice accumulation is small. Also, the slopes both up and down are rather sharp. With the lack of resolution, it’s not clear whether it’s a decade or a millennium. I believe that ship log visiting the Greenland settlement indicated that in about a decade, the settlement went from farmland to ice covered.
        Gloria, a super long interglacial would be very convenient. I think it would be prudent to have some designs in place for shielding our northern cities. I for one am not willing to concede that my birth city of Trondheim will be buried under ice. Hopefully, we’ll have fusion reactors by then.

    • The last 100 year preiod was stronger than any 100 year period before that, that’s blatantly obvious.

  4. With reference to Bob’s sine wave graph, recall that at the trough of its 30-year down trend in the late 1970s, scientists were worried that the cooling trend would continue, leading to another Big Ice Age.
    But instead the trend bottomed out and ticked up, leading to worries about the Venus Express. Now the wave is headed down again, but “scientists” are loathe to jump off the climate gravy train.

  5. Leif. Thanks for the supporting evidence. Imagine a line connecting the minima in the OSF . It would show the variations in solar activity quite nicely especially the Maunder and Dalton minima .The 20th century activity climbs from the 1910 mlnimum at about 1910 to the cycle 21/ 22 minimum.
    The proximity of the 1000 year peak is suggested by Fig2. Fig 3 shows the solar activity peak at 1991 .The timing of this peak relative to Fig 2 is too close to ignore.
    As to epistemology ie certainty see the section above starting ” When will we know for sure that we are on the down slope of the thousand year cycle and heading towards another Little Ice Age.”
    .

    • On the contrary, my graphs show that your contention is not supported by the data we have or surmise we have. Any 8-yr old can see that, even if you can’t.

      • Ah, Doc lsvalgaard My seven year old sees a drop in the graph at the end as well as all the other larger drops. Mind you this is just one seven year old, not an eight year old. Perhaps its best not to predict what kids will say, see, or do. It tends to leave egg on ones face.
        michael

        • Yes, the state of the Sun is beginning to look like what is was about every 100 years in past centuries. Is the climate also looking like this? What does the 7-yr old say about that? As for eggs on Norman Page’s face: I agree.

      • Doc Isvalgaard, Its not his job to worry about the climate.
        Its his job to to learn and enjoy his childhood and not be afraid of possible things far in the future.
        By the way we home school so none of the common core program.
        michael

  6. Thanks for this. If I had a top-ten list of climate change articles, this one would be in it.
    The following bit seems more polemical than sober facts/evidence-based. The argument would be stronger if it stuck to observable facts, i.e., they shifted their concern to climate change, without imputing motive. It’s difficult to impute motive, unless you have access to internal documents. Here’s the bit:
    Ten years later it was obvious that the predictions of imminent death and disaster were wrong. The people at UNEP still wanted to take global control of the worlds economy. They realized that if they could show that the CO2 ( carbon dioxide) produced by burning coal and oil to make electricity and drive our cars might cause a dangerous warming of the earth they would be able to scare the Governments and people into writing laws giving the UN ( and them) control over the world’s economy by controlling the type of energy used and its price.

  7. That’s all very well, making it easy for an 8 year old to understand, but it will have to be simplified even further for the average UK politician!

    • no its to do with lollies not age.
      we all know that a child will respond with verve to bribery but polies need bigger “gifts”.

  8. Dr Page
    With respect to fig4, I do not see why anyone would annotate that data with the green straight line linear plot.
    The period 1979 to about 1996/7, which is a period of about 18 years, is entirely flat.
    Given that you have annotated the period about 1999 to late 2014, which is a period of 15 years, with a virtually straight line plot (the blue line), it is difficult to understand why you have not done the same with the earlier period 1979 through to 1996/7.
    The satellite data, clearly shows an isolated one off step change in and around 1998. It does not show any steady uniform (and linear) rising in temperatures.
    The satellite data may be able to shed some light on your 60 year cycle, but it cannot shed light on the 1000 year cycle that you are seeking to establish. The data is too short to tell one anything about a 1000 year cycle, and indeed too short to tell one much about a 60 year cycle.
    Fig1, to the extent that it may be correct, is worrying since it clearly shows that the Earth is in a cooling trend from the Holocene Optimum, and all sensible people, are well aware what a cooler Earth means for life on this planet of ours.

  9. Ava – the answer is we don’t know. Don’t ever let anyone convince you otherwise. All we can do is guess using incomplete and poorly understood information about the solar system.

  10. Whether we quibble about 1000-yr solar cycles or not, the evidence of warm and cold cycles of this sort of length is abundantly clear.
    What caused these cycles? We don’t know for certain, and probably never will.

  11. tl;dr
    The earth has been warmer than it is now. If it gets warmer than it is now, the world will not end. Who wants to go get some ice cream?
    For an eight year old, you have to think, talk and act like Big Bird.

  12. Epistemology….” the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity “
    I know of no [attentive or otherwise] eight year olds that could understand that definition.
    Th premise of this post is a baseless, hyperbolic, nasty, invective.

    • The definition is in the introduction. My granddaughters epistemological question is
      “Ava asks – the blue line is almost flat. – When will we know for sure that we are on the down slope of the thousand year cycle and heading towards another Little Ice Age.”
      My answer
      “Grandpa says- I’m glad to see that you have developed an early interest in Epistemology……….. ”
      is clearly intended to be humorous.
      The entire CAGW – UNFCCC circus is increasingly being questioned on epistemological grounds. see
      http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/24/climate-change-epistemic-trust-and-expert-trustworthiness/
      I state in the post above
      “The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless.”
      This is simply a statement of the current situation. It just seems like invective ( blasphemy) to the true believer.

    • Further, this article really has nothing to do with the discipline of epistemology. It is using the same epistemological framework that is used by mainstream climate science, only using choosing to focus on alternative datasets and interpretations. The strategy is subject to the same limitations and indices of validity, and does not offer any new insight beyond the constraints of scientific rationalism.

    • Paul Westhaver on August 31, 2015 at 9:42 am

      Paul Westhaver,
      I agree with a substantial part of your comment. Here is my comment from later (in time) in the thread,

      John Whitman on August 31, 2015 at 11:05 am
      Does a typical eight year old have sufficiently developed conceptual faculty and does he/she have a level of integrated concepts to understand the conceptual content of climate focused science (or quantum mechanics or genetic science or nuclear physics or etc, etc)?
      I do not think so.
      Instead of eight year old as the criteria for being able to simply explain one’s science to, rather, I think probably the criteria would be explain to a ~18 year old.
      John

      John

      • John,
        The snotty quip ““If you cannot explain your finding to an [attentive] eight-year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”” is intended to be a conversation stopper. It is intended to be an insult if you question a senile, angry, unimaginative, old monolith. That’s right. If the fading mind of a a procrustean fence post can’t handle new ideas, then according to that self-same tedious ogre YOU must be at fault because you can’t appeal to his eight-year-old-esque mind.
        8 year olds barely have a theory of mind.
        That, being the premise of this post, disqualifies it.
        18 years would be a better limit, as you say.

      • Paul Westhaver on August 31, 2015 at 3:45 pm

        Paul Westhaver,
        I do not think Leif’s statement “If you cannot explain your finding to an [attentive] eight-year old, you don’t understand it yourself” can be supported based on the conceptual developmental nature of an eight year mind, HOWEVER I can see a potentially valid point by Leif buried within his statement. That point might be that if one simplifies one’s scientific position to the irreducibly fundamental stark form then reasonable people will easily and unambiguously see all errors in the scientific case. If Leif meant his statement in that context then I would tend to agree with him.
        John

      • lsvalgaard says on September 1, 2015 at 9:26 am
        Of course I did not mean a literal 8-yr old encumbered by other 8-yr old limitations.

        lsvalgaard (Leif),
        Most of us probably knew that you did not mean it literally. : )
        But, still we should give you a very hard time on the principle that the initiator of witty repartee in a science dialog is fair game for those with witty rejoinders.
        John

      • I acknowledge that if the snotty caustic remark had been uttered by some other level headed person with dimensionality that extends into humor, affability and cordiality, he would attract a tongue in cheek understanding. That is not the case here. The uttering asinine ogre has made quite a habit of humorless meliority such to rightly deserve the exiguous latitude in discourse. It may not have been an issue had the senile bully said what he meant. It is up to us to dish out hospitality to accommodate its inhospitable hypocrisy.

      • Paul Westhaver on September 1, 2015 at 12:56 pm
        I acknowledge that if the snotty caustic remark had been uttered by some other level headed person with dimensionality that extends into humor, affability and cordiality, he would attract a tongue in cheek understanding. That is not the case here. The uttering asinine ogre has made quite a habit of humorless meliority such to rightly deserve the exiguous latitude in discourse. It may not have been an issue had the senile bully said what he meant. It is up to us to dish out hospitality to accommodate its inhospitable hypocrisy

        Paul Westhaver,
        Yes, the repartee and rejoinder gets ugly; often going off into a dark place which my mom warned me about avoiding.
        John

    • I had one kid who was particularly difficult to get to sleep at a reasonable time. For this problem, I’m the celebrated inventor of the ‘boring story’. In this technique you ramble on, careful not to twig any interest and they can’t keep their eyes open.

  13. By the time grandpa unfurled his second chart, that eight-year-old had extracted a bugger from her nose and was studying it to the exclusion of all else. Even as a grownup, I fought a similar impulse.

    • Mention that world temperatures aren’t as high as the climate models predict or that sea levels aren’t going up as fast as needed to make the predictions come true, and the average left wing liberal democrat will call you a denier, tell you it’s science, and stomp out of the room.

      • Yep, I’ve had that happen 5 times in the last 3 weeks. I’m gonna head on down to the brew pub/cafe/gym/fly tying school (Montana businesses must cater to many needs) to see if I can find a relocated Berkley grad and make it happen again. I particularly enjoy the stomping out part.

  14. I believe that evidence supports 1,000 year and (to a lessor extent) 60 year cycles in Northern Hemisphere temperature, but I do not believe that we have identified anything in solar activity that explains this. I cannot effectively explain the cycles, and, to my knowledge, neither can anyone else. But our ignorance in explaining them does not mean they do not exist.
    Aside from tying the cycles to the sun, the rest of the article is spot on, and the more people know about how this whole myth of catastrophic global warming came about, the better. I am sharing a link to this article on Facebook.

    • Indeed, trying to tie the cycles to the Sun just weakens the case, as the Sun does not have those cycles with amplitudes significantly above the noise.

      • It need not be a cycle for there to be an impact.
        what i hear is discussion of cycles of 1000 years and others but most are based on data which is hardly long enough to give a clear image all immersed in massive noise.
        That the sun has an impact is obvious but that does not imply that there is variability or cycles and we live in an environment that is wobbled by other variables including CAGW possibly, the chances that this will be definitively resolved within years is small.
        In my mind the only hope for resolution is a step drop or rise in temperature to eliminate a brace of the theories.

  15. My advice to a precocious adolescent with enough IQ to question the alarmist science would be to devise a way to cleanly reclaim and resell the precious metals and plastics in wind and solar generating devices as they will be one of our larger disposal problems in decades to come.
    If their generation divests from oil, new plastics will be made from potential food crops, as biofuels are now. Mining would no doubt be highly restricted by the world governing body which the present government supports formation of. Reclaiming plastics and metals will be a highly profitable industry if it is not seized by the global control council to be run by bureaucrats.

  16. As a mere factory worker am all for keeping it simple.
    So when it comes to major climate change like the ice age l simply ask ” What would the weather need to be doing to allow this to happen”.
    Because when l see the area and extent of the ice sheets during the ice age.
    l don’t understand how CO2 or ocean currents would have caused that, but l can understand how the weather could have caused that to happen, and is able to explain a number of things that were going on during the ice age. Which leads me to believe that the cause of the ice age was in large part down to the lack of change in the weather over many years.

  17. “If you cannot explain your finding to an [attentive] eight-year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”
    I get the point of this is that “you don’t understand it yourself”. It’s not clear to me if the eight year old is supposed to be able to understand your explanation or just call BS on it or notice your body language says you are bluffing or what.
    I’m still waiting for the eight year old’s guide to string theory.
    The other mantra is the elevator speech (or is that the elevator pitch), the one which is short and therefore necessarily direct to the point.
    The eight year old is just a stand-in for the attentive skeptic (of any age). WUWT is blessed with several. For example, if you can’t explain it so that Willis and Leif accept it, you might want to double-check your thinking.

  18. My 9 year old granddaughter is a extremely bright spot – but I think even she would start yawning before the end! I have, however, sent this to my daughter, her mother. She is a Greenie – whom I have tried to convert for years.

  19. During the ice age they were big swings in temp that effected Greenland and the northern Atlantic.
    These swings in temp happened often and were quite fast. Now l can’t understand how CO2 or ocean currents would have caused them. But l can understand how warmth in the Caribbean and the weather patterns over the northern Atlantic could. While still keeping North America and Europe locked in the ice age.

  20. There is no evidence whatsoever that the millennial cycle or oscillation (900-1500 years) that appears in numerous proxy records is solar in origin. Gerard Bond suggested a solar origin in one of his papers but it looks he later changed his opinion, perhaps after talking to Leif.
    If you are looking at the ≈1150 year cycle that appears in Late Holocene Greenland ice cores, Ole Humlum has an article that indicates that we could be about 150-200 years from the next peak warming. Of course these oscillations are not to be trusted to keep a schedule, so I wouldn’t go as far as to tell an attentive 8 years old that the peak was in 2003.
    That millennial cycle is a big enigma. Perhaps is the Holocene cousin of the Dansgaard-Oescher events. The most intriguing theory I’ve read is for a Lunar origin for the 1470 D-O oscillation. Clearly there is a lot more that we don’t know about climate than we do know.

    • I think that the most important point of the article and the one piece of evidence that you should get to your granddaughter is that according to the millennial cycle or oscillation that has been taking place in the Northern Hemisphere paleo records, from mid 19th century to mid 21st century, the world should have warmed, and it has warmed indeed. Therefore we cannot be responsible for all the warming. Evidence coming from the cooling phases of the 60 year oceanic cycle in 1945-1975 and 2005-on, indicate that we are probably responsible for less than half of the warming or those cooling phases would have had warming instead. This is a simple and short enough message and she can even draw the cycles so she sees it by herself. By the way this is what convinced me that AGW was not a solid theory as it did not take into account any climate periodicity from the past. So it should also work with an 8 years old.

    • For those willing to see straws in the wind and explore possibilities. I would point out the Fairbridge and Sanders article
      The Suns Orbit AD 750- 2050:Basis for New Perspectives on Planetary Dynamics and Earth Moon Linkage
      pp446-471 in “Climate, History Periodicity and Predictability Rampino et al Eds Van Nostrand Reinhold 1987
      also note 3 x Saturn/ Jupiter lap beat frequency (19.859) = 59.577 near enough 60
      60 x 16 = 960
      also USJL = 317.74. x3 = 953 .22
      Other things (other planetary orbits) being never equal especially when translated into climate frequencies these are intruigingly suggestive.

  21. Does a typical eight year old have sufficiently developed conceptual faculty and does he/she have a level of integrated concepts to understand the conceptual content of climate focused science (or quantum mechanics or genetic science or nuclear physics or etc, etc)?
    I do not think so.
    Instead of eight year old as the criteria for being able to simply explain one’s science to, rather, I think probably the criteria would be explain to a ~18 year old.
    John

    • I guess you didn’t read this bit “Ava – Lets think about when the temperature is warmer and colder outside. It is hotter when the sun shines during the day and colder at night when our part of the earth is turned away from the sun .You know already that it takes 24 hours for the earth to turn around once to make what we call a cycle from warm to cold and back again.
      You also know that it is much hotter in summer than winter and that is because the sun shines longer and is higher in the sky in summer than in winter. Each year there is a cycle from warm to cold and back again which takes 365 days.Scientists have measured or estimated in various ways what the earth’s temperature was back for hundreds and thousands of years and can see that there are other hot – cold cycles. ”
      For evidence for the 1000 and 60 year cycles see Fis 5 -9 and 15 at
      http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

    • Berényi, you are misleading poor Ava as well. Chaos mathematical ideas are not a substitute for the laws of physics. Your statement “there are no cycles” is pure BS. Chaotic behavior is an abstract attribute of almost ALL physical systems. Dr. Page may have simplified some things for Ava, and filled in the missing parts with a coherent story, but you have outright lied to her.

  22. Grandpa: Have you been telling me fairy tales about climate change like you did about Santa Claus?
    1) I think understand why the earth gets warmer when the sun is shining during the day and shining longer during the summer. Why does it get colder at night and during the winters? If CO2 or something else interfered with cooling, couldn’t that make it unbearably warm?
    2) Why are there only three clear 1000-year cycles seen in Greenland in the past 11,000 years? These cycles aren’t exactly 1000 years long and the warming spikes aren’t very tall (only 1-2 degC). The last natural warm spell was only 1 degC warmer (Figure 5). My teacher has told us that CO2 could produce and average warming of 4 degC within 100 years with roughly TWICE as much warming in Greenland. Won’t that melt the Greenland Ice Cap and kill the polar bears even if 1-2 degC of warming every 1000 year is natural?
    3) If the solar cycle is important to our climate, why can’t I see 11-year warming cycles in Figure 4 (UAH)?
    4) How big is that 60-year cycle you mentioned? My teacher said it was only 0.25 degC.
    5) I hear people saying that the stock market, weather and climate are chaotic. What does that mean? Last week, everyone on the news was talking about a repeat of the Great Recession. You told me I didn’t need to worry because there is no way to predict the future of the stock market using past patterns.

    • “. My teacher has told us that CO2 could produce and average warming of 4 degC within 100 years”
      Your teacher needs to study the “pause”. Clearly, no warming or 19 years all the while CO2 went up says that CO2 is not a driver of temperature, or at best, a tiny influence.

    • Dear Mr. Watts:
      My grandfather, Dr. Page, does not understand that the rate at which energy escapes from the earth is as important as the rate at which is reaches the earth. He thinks three recent “1000-year cycles” of warming in a 11,000 year record constitutes a pattern that must continue into the future. The AMO (amplitude 0.25 degC) is trivial compared with projected warming for the coming century. The 11-year solar cycle has had negligible impact on temperature in the 20th century.
      If an 8-year-old can recognized these problems and my grandfather ignores them, why do you host his material at your website.

      • The amplitude of the last 1000 year cycle in the NH was about 1.7 degrees C. See the moving average line od Fig 2.That is why it is the key periodicity. If you look at Fig 1 there are peaks at about 10000,9000,8000 7000,2000.1000 and the present.
        as various beats go in and out of phase.

        • Dr Norman Page
          Now, the most serious question about the Modern Warming Cycle is very simple: Is today’s warming peak (2000 – 2010) the peak of the long-term cycle that has been increasing from its low point in 1650?
          Or is today’s 2000-2010 merely the latest plateau in an ever-rising series of plateau’s and ramps towards the next 60-year high point in 2060-2070, then we begin the long decline into the Modern Ice Age of 2400-2500?
          Or will the actual Modern Warming Period Maximum occur only after 2 more 60-year shirt cycles?
          The 1000 – 1250 Medieval Warming Period was NOT a specific single one-year maximum! It was a spread out interval of generally warmer climates worldwide. If anything, it would be convenient to have a nice identifiable single “hot year” … But it did not happen then, nor will it happen the next time.

      • Dr. Page: Thanks for the reply. I was looking at Figure 2 when I estimated the amplitude of the MWP to be about 1 degC, not 1.7 degC. The amplitude of the cycles in Greenland should be about twice as big due to polar amplification. Furthermore, most reconstructions show that the MWP was cooler than the Current Warm Period with most of the controversy revolving around the confidence interval. We have a good idea of the millennial temperature change at one location in Greenland and a much poorer idea of the change in GMST.
        Unforced variability (AMO, ENSO, PDO, MWP/LIA), natural variability (solar), and aerosols are certainly big enough to complicate interpretation of 20th-century warming. How much warming was caused by GHG’s and how much was caused by other factors? However, if climate sensitivity is 3 degC or greater, these factors will be trivial compared with the warming from GHGs. (There are reasons to hope that climate sensitivity is 2 degC or lower, but it certainly isn’t anywhere near zero.)
        Focusing on radiative warming and ignoring radiative cooling is an acceptable tactic for opportunistic politicians and ambulance-chasing lawyers. Steve Schneider thinks such one-sided tactics are appropriate for scientists who want to make the world a better place. I don’t.

      • Dr. Page: By ignoring the impact of rising CO2 and other GHGs on radiative cooling, you are implying that climate sensitivity is zero. Since you have a Ph.D., you should be capable of understanding the basics of the interaction between GHGs and radiation, particularly the Schwarzschild equation that is used in radiation transfer calculations. (See link below, if this equation is unfamiliar.) The absorption coefficients used in the Schwarzschild equation come from laboratory experiments (and are not tuned like parameters used in AOGCMs). Too many readers of WUWT don’t understand that both radiative forcing and unforced variability are real phenomena, because of post like this one.
        http://barrettbellamyclimate.com/page47.htm

  23. Dear Ava,
    You have watched the horses in the pasture whirl and run to the far fence when they are startled by a load noise or piece of paper blowing in the wind. Neither of these things will harm them. Still they run.
    People are doing this sort of thing. Someone notices a big storm or a high temperature. They panic, run in circles, and make a lot of noise. No harm comes about and they seem foolish. They don’t like looking foolish and so they make up scary stories, saying: Just you wait.
    Eva, Earth is a big thing with lots going on. There are big snows, hot temperatures, huge waves, large storms. It is wrong to say nothing bad will ever happen – it will. It is also wrong to say Earth is about to burn up or other such nonsense.
    Now, about that ice cream. [ref; rovingbroker @9:40]

      • Yes, that’s what is missing in Dr. Paige’s heart to heart with his granddaughter. I like that you take away the irrational fear. Were I an eight year old looking at all the graphs and elliptical logic, I would say gee thanks gramps, but is anything bad going to happen?

    • +1! To the point, easy to understand and above all – short enough to keep the 8-year old attentive.

  24. One of the theories as to the driver of the millennial cycle is ocean currents. The melt water pulses at the end of an ice age creates variability in the MOC by having different density water across the planet. When the current moves faster the planet cools, when the current moves slower the planet warms.
    No need for any solar driver. The planet does it all by itself.

  25. Instead of teaching them dubious counter-CAGW explanations on solar influence and historical temperatures that have humongous error bars, teach your child to deal with ambiguity. The world doesn’t care one whit about our binary true/false arguments. There’s no solid evidence to support either side of the CAGW argument. What I teach my kids is is “we don’t know, but the warmists are looking more wrong every year and that means we shouldn’t take expensive drastic action’.
    You can also teach them decision theory and show why spending trillions on dubious energy technologies hurts the poor while not helping with C02 very much. This is why I don’t really buy into the best CAGW argument I’ve seen yet – Taleb’s catastrophe theory. The problem is the current attempts to alleviate a potential sudden change in the climate will cause catastrophic changes in the economy (aka the cure is worse than the disease), and economic meddling has very strong historical evidence of causing wars, famine, poverty, disease, etc.
    See, you only need decision theory and Popper’s scientific method, both of which are actual core topics in epistemology. You don’t need dubious fancy graphs and theories that an 8 year old wouldn’t understand anyways.
    Peter

  26. Dr. Page, thanks (if you’re still watching). Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the generation in school now could be focusing on the real pollution problems that face society instead of this “detour” of ecology into political and religious subversion.
    I remember getting up at 2AM to get samples of illegal nighttime batch dumping by a local industry as a high school “field biology” student circa 1970. We got it stopped and monitored by the (then beneficial) EPA.
    Hopefully, they will be enlightened enough to take CO2 off the list of polluting substances.

    • You might enjoy this poem:
      Mother Goose on Climate Prediction
      As record winds blow
      Unprecedented snow,
      Oh, where is our globe a’ warming?
      That depends on the sun
      and the ways oceans run,
      Plus clouds (with complexity) forming!
      Now, for quite long,
      the models are wrong.
      So, what caused the pause in the warming?
      Yes, look to the sun,
      the ways oceans run,
      and the clouds, in complexity forming.
      CO2 is “too small”
      to stop temperature’s fall
      when the sun and the oceans together,
      Begin to cause cold
      like cycles of old…
      Which no one alive can remember!
      So if I do some harm
      by just keeping warm,
      You’ll have to kindly forgive me!
      I find my solution
      is carbon pollution…
      Or this world will quite quickly outlive me!

  27. The header reminded me of a Feynman quote. In the forward to “Feynman’s Lost Lecture-The Motion of Planets around the Sun”, David Goodstein mentioned how he asked fellow Caltech faculty member Richard Feynman to explain why spin one-half particles obey Fermi Dirac statistics. Rising to the challenge, he said, “I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it.” But a few days later he told Goodstein, “I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don’t understand it.”

  28. Post hoc explanations for phenomenon such as a thousand year cycle with no obvious mechanism are unconvincing in my mind. Its bad enough when the driver needs to be enhanced such as the case for CO2 and it’s assumed positive feedbacks far greater than the original effect. Climate science is full of them already.

    • I’m saying that the 1000 year cycle exists in the temperature data. As to its origin in the sun I am my suitably humble self as to the processes involved I say at
      http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
      “NOTE!! The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.
      Having said that, however, it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are:
      a) the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)
      b) the changing EUV radiation – top down effects via the Ozone layer
      c) the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales.
      The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
      Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.”

  29. Guest essay by Dr. Norman Page
    1. Introduction
    Dr. Leif Svalgaard said in a comment on a WUWT post:
    August 17, 2015 at 2:27 pm
    “If you cannot explain your finding to an [attentive] eight-year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”
    I agree entirely.
    Miriam – Webster defines Epistemology as
    ” the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity “

    A perhaps minor disagreement.
    For an adult to communicate anything to a child can involve a skill set outside the ability to arrive at what it is desired to communicate.
    But the ability to K.I.S.S., yeah, that I can agree with. The more convoluted the explanation of a conclusion gets, the more likely there is something wrong with the conclusion.
    (PS “K.I.S.S.” = “Keep It Simple, Stupid”.)

  30. That’s not what you said to your eight year old. Still I appreciate you at least trying to keep things simple. Keep trying. You will get better at it with practice. The original quote is about a six year old by the way, so there is still lots of room for improvement!

  31. You say “Most people living before about 1850 grew their own food. Before then, if just a few extra- cold years followed one after the other, millions of people starved to death because their harvests failed.”
    I would add: and this is during a time when there were only a billion people in the world: we have seven times that number alive today.

    • And about a billion of them can be supported today because of the beneficial increase in plant food, ie CO2, from three molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules to four over the past 160 years.

  32. Not all eight year olds are built the same. Perhaps some of the folks here just have normal kids.

  33. The Epistemology of Explaining Climate Forecasting so an 8 Year Old Can Understand it
    Guest essay by Dr. Norman Page
    ____
    So You Really Thought You Might Like To
    _____
    sell such epistomology to an 8 year old without her grapping the iphone and stare at a point disclosing You.
    Nice.
    Hans

  34. 1. Our oldest, at 8yrs, would have understood this.
    2. Why does everyone ignore the variable of the internal heat sources of the earth?
    3. The science has been so badly corrupted on the AGW side that they’ve no high ground to call-out others.
    4. Thanks for sharing this though-provoking piece of work – it inspires a conversation and a desire for exploration versus the brainwashing & bullying common to the self-promoting self-enriching anti-free speech power-lust that dominates the AGW side.

  35. The following graphic shows how the strength of the polar vortex (wind) affects the ice extent in the Arctic. You can see how quickly the wind can change ice extent. The strength of the polar vortex and wind strength decreases when the solar wind weakens. This has a huge impact on the climate, because changing albedo, the jet stream meanders, reduces evaporation over the oceans. This will cause a gradual cooling of the oceans and extreme temperatures in summer and winter, due to the decrease in water vapor over continents.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

  36. 60 and 1000 year cycles:
    It’s close to 69yrs, that happens four times in a row, with an additional 41.5yr period, to complete the 317.7yr Jovian cycle that is driving it. Which is what Desmond King-Hele was looking at while working in my father’s team at Guided Weapons in the 1960’s.
    There is no 1000yr cycle, stadial like cold periods through the Holocene such as the LIA, Dark Ages, and previous clusters of deeper-longer solar minima occur on average around every 820yrs, but with intervals varying from around 400yrs to 1200yrs. The next one is through the following 250 years, with a deep protracted solar minimum starting in the 2090’s, and another from around 2200.

  37. It would take an exceptionally attentive 8-year old to stay focused through all this.
    Simpler, please.

  38. My father, Dr. Aden Meinel, was one of the top founders of Kitt Peak and other observatories and he and his associates built the very first solar observatory, the McMath building, on Kitt Peak when I was a teenager back in the 1960’s.
    We have a VERY SHORT history of DIRECT observation of the sun. My grandfather, Edison Petitt worked with Dr. Hubble on observing the sun starting with the 1900’s. Even so, it was not constant at all but periodic work.
    We have very little direct data to work off of, starting with the famous Galileo first observation of sun spots several hundred years ago. My family, who are mainly astronomers/professors for several generations worried a great deal about Ice Ages and were happy to see sun spots because they figured out back over the last 100 years there had to be a connection between the sun and Ice Ages.
    Once we figured out there were MORE THAN ONE Ice Age, the obvious pulse of solar activity is a WARNING we are entering an Ice Age condition. What causes this is still hotly (heh) debated. Cosmologists believe that since our entire solar system is gripped by the Milky Way system which is gripped by the Great Attractor, our little collection of planets and a most unremarkable, relatively small star, moves in and out of various debris fields that form that dark blanket concealing much of the core of the Milky Way and the many stars spiraling endlessly into the maw of the black hole (?) at the center which causes our sun to sometimes be more active due to cosmic dust, etc. distant stars tugging on our much feebler gravity pool, etc.
    The sun is NOT CONSTANT and never has been. It is a star with a birth and future death and ‘stable environment’ is IMPOSSIBLE ever and humans, as Goethe said in the famous Faust poems, when we say the world is perfect and beautiful, this is when all things die.
    We like the present because we evolved to live like it is today as all other living things want to live but history of the earth shows often shattering even sudden changes and huge and small annihilations and utter chaos followed by some order then chaos again and we cannot change this, we can only swim through it somehow.

    • Astronomers have come to realize that the sun is a variable star. After observing so many like it, they now have a good idea of its eventual fate.
      Earth is about half way through its billion-year complex life phase. In another 500 million years or so, macroscopic, multicellular life won’t be possible on the surface of our planet. This phase of evolution was preceded by over three billion years of less complex life and might well be followed by a similar period of subterranean microbial life.
      But within five billion years the sun will go red giant. Earth will either be engulfed or, if its orbit has moved far enough outward, too blasted for it to harbor organisms. Probably.
      Life on earth is most likely doomed, so enjoy it while you can. Also, let’s hope that NASA can once again focus on space exploration rather than “climate change” and promoting Islamic science.

  39. I had the misfortune to literally grow up living inside observatories (my bedroom for some periods was very much inside my grandfather’s observatory because our family was very large and it was a nice place to live). I grew up viewing the sun as a variable star, that is, it has pulses and changes and it is more like a living, breathing entity than some passive bright thing in the sky that happens to show up every morning.
    Viewing the local star this way helps a lot with the hysteria today. Alas, my father is responsible for Al Gore’s childish view of our planet because he did talk a lot about CO2 and other gases and wondered how this would affect the planet’s climate but then as he came closer to death, he had a revelation after arguing with me, and wrote his last paper, ‘The Sun Is A Variable Star’ and for the first time in his life, could not get it published. ‘
    At this point, about ten years ago, I knew the Rulers of our Planet were going to lead the populace on a wild goose chase after a phantom (never changing climate) that is impossible and I cynically decided it was all a dirty scheme to tax thin air our plant life needs to grow. So we will have future famines thanks to too little CO2 for plants who then breath out the O2 we need to survive.
    This insane plan means that we have less oxygen and less plant growth which will kill off the majority of humans in due course if they succeed in this nefarious plan, not realizing they, too, will die or become smaller as only small creatures will survive. Remember the giant dinosaurs?
    Plenty of warmth, CO2 and OXYGEN.

  40. So a graph of air temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet is supposed to be proof enough for 1000 year global temperature cycles?

  41. Funny thing: None (not one) of the critical commenters took issue with Dr. Roger’s recitation of the history of the UN’s involvement in the ginning up of the great climate scare. I guess it must be true then.

  42. That’s designed for an eight year-old ?
    You must be a scientist: The text is far too complex, the formatting is terrible, and I suspect you did not think about a simple message to communicate before you started writing, or it would have been stated clearing in the first paragraph or two.
    I assume an 8-year old would last about ten minutes before getting bored and checking his / her smart-phone … and then getting completely distracted.
    However, in the spirit of modern-day grade inflation, I give you an “A” simply for having the name “Norman”, which I like, and for your good intentions, in contrast to climate modelers who rarely have good intentions, and sue people who notice they are wasting the taxpayers’ money.
    Here’s my climate article, for an eight year-old who lives in a northern US state, and I think it would be just as useful for a scientists with PhDs:
    – People like to talk about the climate.
    – The climate of our planet is always changing.
    – Did you know your house was once under a mile of ice?
    – Scientists don’t know why that happened.
    – Then the ice melted.
    – Scientists don’t know why that happened either.
    – Scientists don’t know a lot of things.
    – People love to predict the future.
    – Sometimes scientists predict another ice age:
    “Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.”
    ——– Los Angles Times,
    October 23, 1912
    “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age”
    ——- Time Magazine,
    September 10, 1923
    “An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.”
    ——– New York Times
    January 5, 1978
    – Sometimes scientists predict a global warming disaster.
    “The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot…. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.”
    ——— Washington Post
    November 21, 1922
    “America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise.”
    ——— New York Times
    March 27, 1933
    “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”
    ——– Time Magazine
    January 2, 1939
    – Whether they predict cooling, or warming, it seems the scientists’ predictions are always wrong.
    – Some clever men, who are not scientists, will predict a coming disaster, and say all people MUST follow their orders, or they will be doomed:
    – Those clever men are called politicians.
    – Sometimes teachers act just like politicians.
    – People lie a lot, and not always with good intentions.
    – The prediction of a coming global warming disaster is one of those lies.
    – Hundreds of years ago, it was too cool, and green plants grew too slow
    – Today, it’s a little warmer.
    – That’s good news.
    – Today, more carbon dioxide in the air makes green plants grow faster.
    – That’s good news too.
    – That good news means todays climate is better than it has been in hundreds of years.
    – Your main lesson for today is:
    When people predict the future, especially a coming disaster,
    DON’T BELIEVE THEM
    Ask them how they could be so smart that they can “predict” the future,
    when no one else has ever been able to predict the future.
    And don’t ever worry about the climate — it’s good this year, and getting better.
    My final words:
    “Do you have any questions?”
    The 8 year-old responds:
    “huh? .. what did you say? … are you done? … I wasn’t texting, I was just, like, checking the battery in my phone. … Whatever. … Will you buy me the new iPhone?”
    Free climate blog
    for non-scientists
    No ads – no money for me.
    A public service.
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  43. We fretted about weather since the dawn of agriculture.
    Humans LOVED the last Ice Age. Lots and lots of fish and meat on the hoof, giant animals easily slain with simple rock plus stick tools. Made buddies with the weaker wolves who assisted this in return for left over bones.
    FIre: good thing, Changes us from apes to humans. Cook meat. Yummy. Then Ice melted, animals vanished, now had to work to keep animals alive. Had to guard these from other humans. Kill them!
    Yes, a frozen world can be a paradise.

    • But try to sell your home when its under a mile of ice !
      I’m not sure where you are leading, and maybe I’m too dense to get the humor, but anecdotal written evidence clearly showed the warmer centuries were liked A LOT MORE than the colder centuries, in the past 1,000 years.
      Not sure what the polar bears thought, but that’s what people thought.

    • Unfortunately, or maybe not, in the case of short-faced bears, American lions and dire wolves, our ancestors killed off all the big meaty animals, so now we have to to toil in the soil for our daily bread instead of living off the fat and muscle of the land.
      For farmers and those they feed like seven billion canaries on bird seed, warmer is definitely better.

  44. Like many aphorisms, Dr. Svalgaard’s comment uses hyperbole to make an important point about clarity of exposition. It may well be also considered an operational hypothesis when dealing with real children.
    Our children today are barraged with climate-scare propaganda. When they ask questions, it will not do to say, “Go away, kid, you bother me.” One must try to explain things as effectively as possible. Dr. Page has made a legitimate attempt to do this. The critical comments seem to fall into two groups: 1) Dr. Page’s explanation is erroneous, or 2) Dr. Page fails to make it understandable to an average student.
    I have no insight into group 1, but I have for many years made my living explaining things to eight-year-olds, so perhaps I may comment on the second group, using the introduction of the term “epistemology” as an example. I likely would not make this reference to an average student, but if the kid seemed really interested in the subject, I might ask her to look it up in the dictionary for the fun of it, even though I know full well she won’t understand it. But I would then be sure to translate to third grade language: Epistemology is about how we know stuff.
    There is no guarantee of success in writing at the eight-year-old level, but it is frequently useful, and sometimes necessary. Appreciation to Dr. Page.
    AKA: John the Third Grade Teacher

  45. Articles like this one based on all sorts of cyclical data make me nervous. It is all statistical and not scientific. Cycles within cycles within cycles. Not necessarily so.

  46. This isn’t really Epistemology, there’s very little about the theory of knowledge and rather a lot of exposition/explanation of a position/viewpoint.
    Not that its bad or poorly done, just it’s not what it says on the tin!

    • Here is the section that deals with the limits of what we can say about the future. There is no approach that. at this time, can provide any better estimate in a shorter time frame because of our current lack of knowledge of the processes and parameters involved.
      “Ava asks – the blue line is almost flat. – When will we know for sure that we are on the down slope of the thousand year cycle and heading towards another Little Ice Age.
      Grandpa says- I’m glad to see that you have developed an early interest in Epistemology. Remember ,I mentioned the 60 year cycle, well, the data shows that the temperature peak in 2003 was close to a peak in both that cycle and the 1000 year cycle. If we are now on the downslope of the 1000 year cycle then the next peak in the 60 year cycle at about 2063 should be lower than the 2003 peak and the next 60 year peak after that at about 2123 should be lower again, so, by that time ,if the peak is lower, we will be pretty sure that we are on our way to the next little ice age.
      That is a long time to wait, but we will get some useful clues a long time before that.Look again at the red curve in Fig 3 – you can see that from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2009 solar activity dropped to the lowest it has been for a long time. Remember the 12 year delay between the 1991 solar activity peak and the 2003 temperature peak, if there is a similar delay in the response to lower solar activity , earth should see a cold spell from 2019 to 2021 when you will be in Middle School.
      It should also be noticeably cooler at the coolest part of the 60 year cycle – halfway through the present 60 year cycle at about 2033.
      We can watch for these things to happen but meanwhile keep in mind that the overall cyclic trends can be disturbed for a time in some years by the El Nino weather patterns in the Pacific and the associated high temperatures that we see in for example 1998 and 2010 (fig 2) and that we might see before the end of this year- 2015.”

      • Dr Page, the cycles make very clear sense to me. In my short 7 years of reading, my understanding of the cyclic patterns has steadily increased. In that regard, I see your use of 2003 as a cyclic point of interest as incorrect. To what natural part of the climate system does that correlate to? I have come to see the years ending in 5, 6, or 7 as being the point of change between warm and cool trends. An example would be the start of this last stage of warming was around 1975/77. The end point of that 30 year warm trend was around the year 2006/07. If one looks backwards past 1976/77, then that 30 year slight cooling trend started in 1946/47. Prior to that was a warm trend that commenced around the years 1915/16. Prior to that was a cooling that commenced around 1885/86, and the warm/cool trends continue on into the past approximately every 30+ years from there.
        The reason for my choosing the start and end years for these warm/cool trends in this fashion is that the MEI graph correlates exactly with this scenario. Every one of those 30+ year periods can be seen to be either El Nino dominant, or La Nina dominant. That makes perfect sense to me as the Sun is the power source, but the oceans are the main modulator of the Earth,s climate. Thus the end of this cool trend should be around 2036/37. I would expect the coldest portion to last somewhere between the years 2022 to 2030, before the swing back to a warmer trend.
        One last thought on something that caught my attention last month. There was a post that discussed the Cascadia Fault system, and the potential for a devastating quake in the Pacific Northwest. While engaging in that post, I searched around to refresh my thoughts on the known frequency of large magnitude quakes on that fault. I turned to Wiki to see what they offered on the subject, and was surprised at what their data could be inferring. Here is what they {used to} show, as I now see that they have changed their page since I made this comment…………..””There was a post last week over at WUWT that discussed the New Yorker quake article. I left this comment………………………………………………………………………..
        “”Wikipedia has an interesting chart of the last 6 quakes on the Cascadia Fault Zone. Here is what they show.
        1700AD >315 yrs
        1310AD 390 yrs
        810 AD 500 yrs
        400 AD 410 yrs
        170 BC 570 yrs
        600 BC 430 yrs
        Note the time period correlation between the two 500+ year intervals and
        the RWP and MWP. Would that suggest that this current Warm Period has
        the potential to last until 2200 AD?””………The RWP is the Roman Warm Period, and the MWP is the Medieval Warm Period. That suggests a possibility that the next mega event will not hit until some time after 2185 AD. This also suggests that the current Modern Warm Period might last to around the year 2200 AD. Although, there is always the potential for a lesser but still damaging quake in the interim.
        Also of note, is that each of those 6 mega quakes listed above struck during the bottom of a cold period, similar to what lies ahead in the next 10 years. The solar minimum is no more than 6 years away. I say 3 years as a strong possibility. If there is any potential for a near term event, then the most likely years for such an event would be between 2020 to 2028. The bottom of the cold should fall within that period.
        ==================================================================================
        I now see that Wikipedia has since changed their information on that page. It no longer shows that same sequence of years since I made that comment on 7/24 of this year. Climate revisionism?

      • Correction….Wiki has two different posts on Cascadia quakes. Here is what I first saw at Wiki….https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake
        Note that the timeline of events I mention below corresponds to the periods of the RWP and the MWP. This made me wonder about the possibility that this indicates that the current Modern Warm Period will last close to the year 2200. There is then around 400 +/- years of cooling. If you add up the 500 plus years of warming with the 400 +/- years of cooling then you arrive at a total pattern that lasts around 900+ years.

      • Don’t worry about particular years .Each millennial peak will vary in the shape of the peak and in its exact periodicity may vary from 960 to 1020 +/- When we look back I expect the peak to have been some time in the sometime in the first 15 years of this century.
        The 60 year cycle essentially cancels out over time so that the millennial cycle is the dominant control .The posts says
        “Well the simplest and most likely guess for starters is that the 1000 year cycle from 2003 – 3003 will have a temperature curve whose general shape is similar to the cycle from 1000 – 2003. see Fig 2 .
        If you look at that Figure again you can see that the Northern Hemisphere average temperature cooled by a bit under 2 degrees from 1000 to about 1635 so that we might expect a similar cooling from 2003 to 2638 – of course with various ups and downs along the way .
        The warm peak at about 1000 was a good time for people when the Vikings were able to live in Greenland. Harvests were good and people in Europe had time and money to spare to start building cathedrals The cold period around 1635 – to 1700 is called the Maunder Minimum ……………….
        Remember ,I mentioned the 60 year cycle, well, the data shows that the temperature peak in 2003 was close to a peak in both that cycle and the 1000 year cycle. If we are now on the downslope of the 1000 year cycle then the next peak in the 60 year cycle at about 2063 should be lower than the 2003 peak and the next 60 year peak after that at about 2123 should be lower again, so, by that time ,if the peak is lower, we will be pretty sure that we are on our way to the next little ice age.
        For evidence of the millennial cycle from completely different data see-
        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS001679321003014X

  47. Why an 8 year old instead of an 18 year old, who you would expect to be more intellectually capable? Because you need someone young enough to have an open mind, which is to say someone who has not already been persuaded about the “right” answer on that topic. With climate, at 8 years it may be too late.

  48. In presenting the epistemology of explaining climate forecasting so an 8 year old can understand it, one firstly should point out that modern climate models make projections rather than predictions aka forecasts. Secondly, one should point out that projections are not falsifiable thus being unscientific. Thirdly, one should point out that projections convey no information to a policy maker regarding the outcomes of his/her policy decisions thus being useless for the purpose of controlling the climate.

  49. An excellent article; an eye-opener even if the science turns out to be dubious. Irrelevant.
    Anyone who masters their own particular art should be able to explain it to a neophyte. Agreed.
    CO2 is plant food. Agreed.
    Ehrlich was wrong. Agreed.
    The new environmentalism is about governance, not conservancy. Agreed.
    Just as oil markets control countries, carbon markets control emerging market countries.
    No matter what happens, we can adapt.
    I find it interesting that the same people who support AGW tend to support de-population, forced vaccines, and GMOs. When people who support de-population control medicine, food supplies, and global markets, there may be something else behind the whole debate.
    That’s what I like most about this article.
    If you don’t agree with skeptics, move inland.
    If you don’t agree with alarmists, head for the hills.
    Either way, we’re all screwed.
    https://atokenmanblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/carbon-monoxide-co-and-carbon-dioxide-co2-do-you-know-the-difference/

Comments are closed.