Guest essay by Dr. Norman Page
A very large majority of establishment academic climate scientists have succumbed to a virulent infectious disease – the CO2 Derangement Syndrome. Those afflicted by this syndrome present with a spectrum of symptoms .The first is an almost total inability to recognize the most obvious Millennial and 60 year emergent patterns which are trivially obvious in solar activity and global temperature data.
This causes the natural climate cycle variability to appear frightening and emotionally overwhelming. Critical thinking capacity is badly degraded. The delusionary world inhabited by the eco-left establishment activist elite is epitomized by Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes science-based fiction, “The Collapse of Western-Civilization: A View from the Future”
Oreskes and Conway imagine a world devastated by climate change. Intellectual hubris, confirmation bias, group think and a need to feel at once powerful and at the same time morally self-righteous caused those worst affected to convince themselves, politicians, governments, the politically correct chattering classes and almost the entire UK and US media that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver. This led governments to introduce policies which have wasted trillions of dollars in a quixotic and futile attempt to control earth’s temperature by reducing CO2 emissions.
The origins of this disease can be traced to Ehrlich’s 1968 book “The Population Bomb”. He said:
“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”
Such apocalyptic forecasts are a prime indicator of the CO2 Derangement Syndrome. In “The Limits to Growth” 1972 the disease metamorphosed first into a search for “sustainability” and then rapidly into a war on CO2 . This is a bizarre turn of events because CO2 is the basis of all organic life and the increase in CO2 alone is the cause of 25 % of the increase in world food production in the 20th century.
The UN and Sweden organized a meeting in 1972 in Stockholm to discus the interaction of humans with the environment. Maurice Strong was appointed by his UN friend U Thant , to be the General Secretary of the meeting. Strong, 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 Strong himself as Executive Director.
Ten years later it was obvious that the predictions of imminent death and disaster were wrong but Hansen et al NASA 1981 in “Climate Impact of Increasing Carbon Dioxide” resurrected many of the doomsday establishment scenarios:
“A sea level rise of 5 m would flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida,10 percent of New Jersey, and many other lowlands throughout the world. Climate models (7, 8) indicate that 2°C global warming is needed to cause 5°C warming at the West Antarctic ice sheet. A 2°C global warming is exceeded in the 21st century in all the CO2 scenarios we considered, except no growth and coal phaseout.”
“The global warming projected for the next century is of almost unprecedented magnitude. On the basis of our model calculations, we estimate it to be 2.5°C for a scenario with slow energy growth and a mixture of nonfossil and fossil fuels. This would exceed the temperature during the altithermal (6000 years ago) and the previous (Eemian)interglacial period 125,000 years ago(53), and would approach the warmth of the Mesozoic, the age of dinosaurs”… Hansen said :”The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
….” if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher.”
For political and selfish career reasons the UNEP bureaucrats wanted to take control of the global economy. They realized that if they could use Hansen type forecasts to show that the CO2 produced by burning coal and oil to make electricity and drive cars might cause a dangerous warming of the earth they would be able to scare Governments and peoples into writing laws giving the UN (and themselves) control over the world’s economy by controlling the type of energy used and its price.
To this end in 1985 UNEP organized a meeting of scientists at Villach in Austria in 1985 to see if they could show that CO2 was dangerous. The scientific report 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.”
By contrast the official summary statement 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 Villach report made two important recommendations. As one result 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. 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 Convention is to keep CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed would prevent dangerous man made interference with the climate system.
This treaty is 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”
Apocalyptic forecasts are used as the main drivers of demands for action and for enormous investments such as those in the new IPCC SR1.5 report and in the work of William Nordhaus who advocates a carbon tax .Nordhaus is quoted in the NYT as saying
“If we start moving very swiftly in the next 20 years, we might able to avoid 2 degrees, but if we don’t do that, we’re in for changes in the Earth’s system that we can’t begin to understand in depth. Warming of 4, 5, 6 degrees will bring changes we don’t understand because it’s outside the range of human experience in the last 100,000 to 200,000 years.”
Nordhaus’ science and economics basis is discussed in “Projections and Uncertainties about Climate Change in an Era of Minimal Climate Policies” https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170046
which states:
“The climate module has been revised to reflect recent earth system models. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is based on the analysis of Olsen et al. (2012).The reasons for using this approach are provided in Gillingham et al. (2018). The final estimate is a mean warming of 3.1°C for an equilibrium CO2 doubling. The transient climate sensitivity or TCS (sometimes called the transient climate response) is adjusted to correspond to models with an ECS of 3.1°C, which produces a TCS of 1.7°C”
IPCCSR1.5 says:
“C2. Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence). These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those options (medium confidence)………..
C2.6 Total annual average energy-related mitigation investment for the period 2015 to 2050 in pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C is estimated to be around 900 billion USD2015 (range of 180 billion to 1800 billion USD2015 across six models17). This corresponds to total annual average energy supply investments of 1600 to 3800 billion USD2015 and total annual average energy demand investments of 700 to 1000 billion USD2015 for the period 2015 to 2050, and an increase in total energy-related investments of about 12% (range of 3% to 23%) in 1.5°C pathways relative to 2°C pathways. Average annual investment in low-carbon energy technologies and energy efficiency are upscaled by roughly a factor of five (range of factor of 4 to 5) by 2050 compared to 2015 (medium confidence).”
Those proselytizing the warming scenario are closely following the UNFCCC Agenda 21 political plan of action. Bernie Sanders says :
“Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet. The debate is over, and the scientific jury is in: global climate change is real, it is caused mainly by emissions released from burning fossil fuels and it poses a catastrophic threat to the long-term longevity of our planet. If we do nothing, the planet will heat up five to ten degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. That would cause enough sea level rise from melting glaciers to put cities like New York and Miami underwater – along with more frequent asthma attacks, higher food prices, insufficient drinking water and more infectious diseases.”
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed taxing the wealthy as high as 70% to fund a climate change plan she’s pushing called the “Green New Deal.” She also says “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”
Fortunately, reality is finally beginning to intrude upon the dangerous global warming meme.
Curry, 2017 in “Climate Models for the layman” says:
“GCMs are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on time scales of decades to centuries, with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems…..”
Scafetta et al 2017 states:
“The severe discrepancy between observations and modeled predictions……further confirms….that the current climate models have significantly exaggerated the anthropogenic greenhouse warming effect”
Hansen et al 2018 “Global Temperature in 2017” said:
“However, the solar variability is not negligible in comparison with the energy imbalance that drives global temperature change. Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
Page, 2017 in “The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.” said:
“This paper argued that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted.”
The reality is that Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths.
It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in relation to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.
- The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity, and precessional cycles.
- Solar “activity” cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.
When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is useful to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. The 2017 paper proposed a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991,that this turning point correlates with a temperature turning point in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650.
The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports, the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial.
This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991. These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.
Dr. Norman Page holds a PhD. in Geology and works from Houston, TX.
References:
See the Energy and Environment paper The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
And an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
See also https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-millennial-turning-point-solar.html
and the discussion with Professor William Happer at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
The reality is that Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths.
No, that is just wishful cyclomania. Especially the ‘resonance’ bit.
what is the wavelength of a 60y pseudo-cycle !?
I generally tend to dismiss anyone in this debate who starts off a proposition by declaring his ideal is “reality” or that he is a “realist” . This is just a hubristic way of declaring yourself right before present any reasoned argument.
However, you can produce a circa 60 period as beats of solar and lunar periods.
p1=9.1;p2=10.8;
cos(2*pi*x/p1)+cos(2*pi*x/p2)
as I pointed out here:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/11/ace-in-the-hole/
I generally tend to dismiss anyone in this debate who starts off a proposition by declaring his ideal is “reality” or that he is a “realist” . This is just a hubristic way of declaring yourself right before present any reasoned argument.
Which is precisely what Norman did. I quoted him.
So I guess you could safely assume that I was agreeing with your point 😉
So I guess you could safely assume that I was agreeing with your point
Better to say that unambiguously outright instead of making it depend on assumptions or guesswork…
Especially when writing as a reply to Leif, rather than a reply to the thread.
If I wish to agree with or support someone, it would be logical to put that in a reply to their comment.
I did say it unambiguously, the problem is that you are expecting disagreement and react defensively to a comment which was supporting what you wrote. You also assumed that I had not realised that the italics represented a quotation and that I had taken that to be your words.
So you are the one who was ambiguous ( at least in your own mind ) and ready to misread everything as an attack on your comment.
Hint: If you want quotes , try using the tag blockquote in angled brackets.
But never mind, you have managed to turn my support for your criticism into an argument anyway , so your ultimate aim is achieved.
I did say it unambiguously
I am the judge of that, not you.
Saying things simply and clearly is important [and you didn’t].
Asking someone to have to guess and assume things is not useful.
He means that climate subsystems include relatively short-term coupled oscillators of varying quasi-frequency, Leif, such as the ENSO, the NAO, the IOO, the MJO and others.
They couple and exchange energy among themselves, producing episodic variations and quasi-cycles in the observable climate. It’s no mystery, and certainly not cyclomania.
They couple and exchange energy among themselves, producing episodic variations and quasi-cycles in the observable climate. It’s no mystery, and certainly not cyclomania
It certainly is when he asserts that they are externally driven, rather than just random internal episodes that go up and down. They are not ‘coupled oscillations’ [oscillations have a restoring force]. And they are not short-lived. He talks about 1000-yr ‘cycles’.
Let us not forget that up to 90% of The factors that affect climate is badly or not known. Policy based “science” is not helping us with that problem.
So now you’re an expert on the Earth (i.e. Geo meaning earth, and ology meaning study of) along with your unparalleled knowledge of the Sun; a true know-it-all.
I must remember that the great Leif Svalgaard has determined that there are no beats, cyclic quasi or otherwise, no day and night, no seasonality, no tides and heaven forbid anyone suggest sunspot or solar cycles that would be wishful cyclomania!
As a professional astronomer, you must have suffered for your beliefs – forced as you would have been – to study orbital mechanics. The smallest circumgyrations elliptical or otherwise must have driven you nuts.
What on earth are you talking about? I think you have been enjoying the resonance* of your own ego way to much. /wit
*Resonance (Astronomy) meaning: “The occurrence of a simple ratio between the periods of revolution of two bodies about a single primary.”
So now you’re an expert on the Earth
Has always been. Some of my most cited papers are about the Earth and its atmosphere.
The relevant definition of resonance is
“a phenomenon that occurs when the frequency at which a force is periodically applied is equal or nearly equal to one of the natural frequencies of the system on which it acts”
I wrote this before I commented above: “I’m betting if you reply, it will be short, egotistical, completely out of context but chock-full of vain and authoritative self reference.”
For somebody who considers themselves “God’s gift to science” it’s surprising how little ability you have at keeping your eye on the ball. The relevant context and meaning of the word was from Astronomy and I quote:
“It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in relation to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories:
The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity, and precessional cycles.
[AND] Solar “activity” cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.”
And change the context; you mostly certainly did! The meaning of resonance you slipped into is from Physics* and the study of waves.
It’s clear – as I suggested – that you probably slept through orbital mechanics and have missed the relevant* point entirely! /wit
*Resonance, as in celestial or orbital mechanics!
Resonance, as in celestial or orbital mechanics!
The orbital resonances are not what causes our climate to ‘cycle’. For that we need resonance in the physical system that makes our atmosphere.
Take this comment as your chance to learn something…
What is truely absurd about your position is that you know it is absurd! You are publicly stating that orbital ‘resonances’ – for want of a better word – have no affect on the “resonances” in the atmosphere.
Perhaps your argument is a semantic one – to be generous – and you are simply gagging on the word ‘resonance’ but it does have a prosaic interpretation that is commonly understood to mean; rhythmically connected!
What mechanism(s) do you propose that might be able to decouple orbital affects from the “resonance in the physical system that makes our atmosphere”?
Here is your chance to be reminded of something; genius! Planetary resonances affect the Sun directly, according to the rocket scientists at NASA. And the Sun/Moon system is also a resonate one according to them.
*Physical
What mechanism(s) do you propose that might be able to decouple orbital affects from the “resonance in the physical system that makes our atmosphere”?
The real question is what mechanism(s) you propose that couple orbital effects from the resonance in the atmosphere?
Leif, constructive as usual.
Stick to the sun where I do accept you to be the master but please stop trying to apply your highly specialized knowledge to a completely different scenario.
Could Leif post up a link to where he ‘predicted’ that this current sunspot cycle would be abnormally quiet…say something he wrote or postulated maybe ten years ago…you know, as a ‘master’ of all things solar he surely saw this one coming…didn’t he?
Could Leif post up a link to where he ‘predicted’ that this current sunspot cycle would be abnormally quiet
https://leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Like a Boss!
I stand corrected.
What about the other prediction you made in the same paper?
Namely that
….the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. In fact, they may become more common.
Were extreme events more common?
I note that Charles Nelson at 1:51 pm asked a question of Leif Svalgaard.
25 minutes later Leif responded.
In the next several hours and 40+ comments, Charles did not come back to thank Leif. So I’ll do that:
Thanks Leif.
Thanks Leif. You did indeed predict the low amplitude cycle in 2004.
How did you do with the other prediction…you made in the same paper?
Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity, but the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. In fact, they may become more common.
they may become more common.
As evidenced by the solar storm of September 2017
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/september-2017s-intense-solar-activity-viewed-from-space
Fortunately, the storm was not Earth-directed, so we escaped major damage.
The point is that even at very low solar activity we can still expect major solar storms.
John F….
Some of us have work to go to, you know!
But thanks for stepping in for me!
And whilst on the subject of ‘predictions’….I wonder what Leifs predictions for the next solar cycle are?
Ah Charles, now you know Leif a little better! He can be annoying, but he doesn’t often speak carelessly and he has his evidence a click away for queries pike this.
The thing about Leif which I find most disturbing is that the science of solar radio astronomy is relatively recent and yet he resolutely denies that there is any coupling between changes in the sun and the earth’s climate. Yes, we do have sunspot records going back a couple of years but most of the sophisticated measurements of x-rays, neutrons, magnetic fields etc barely stretch back fifty years…how can be be so sure on the basis of so little evidence?
He reminds me a bit of the Warmists who squeal about the ice caps melting…using records that begin in 1979!
we do have sunspot records going back a couple of years but most of the sophisticated measurements of x-rays, neutrons, magnetic fields etc barely stretch back fifty years
We have 400+ years of sunspots. The effect of solar activity on magnetic records and aurorae go back almost 300 years. The cosmic ray record stored in polar ice and tree rings go back many thousands of years, e.g.
https://leif.org/research/Nine-Millennia-of-Multimessenger-Solar-Activity.pdf
This is like measuring temperatures from 6 AM to 7 AM and making a projection that it will get warmer. Your “paleo” study shows that it was really cold at night before. Correlation shows that cars and their emissions must be the cause. Emissions accelerate from 6 AM to 7 AM and it gets warmer.
Your projections work up to 6 PM and your extrapolation based gospel says that we will fry within a week.
What an absolutely wonderful distillation, with examples, of the scam of man-made catastrophic climate change, and all the peripherals it scoops up. Whatever lead us to getting a population of such gullible dimwits?
And who has been “educating” impressionable children for the past 35 years? The predominance of leftism in the political preferences of educators on both sides of the pond is shocking. A coincidence perhaps? Then JFK shot himself!
It was one of the Secret Service guys just behind who was surprised and fired when the car suddenly accelerated. No magic bullet, just one from one of our own!
“For political and selfish career reasons the UNEP bureaucrats wanted to take control of the global economy.” – BINGO
where I do accept you to be the master /i>
Well, as a professional astronomer and recognized expert in atmospheric science my relevant knowledge may trump that of a mere lawyer and a geolgist [sic].
Mere arguments from authority.
Mere arguments from authority
From someone who knows what he is talking about, as contrasted to the mere lawyer {SW].
For your next surgery would you not prefer someone with the authority and knowledge to do a good job on you?
I’d sure the heck check on the surgeon’s track record. The warm-mongers don’t seem to be doing so well in that respect.
Well, I have been lucky with my surgeons, a sister of mine not so much. There are good ones and then there are bad ones. When “trusting an authority” is your only option, you just have no choice. “Earth’s climate” as clear a topic as, say, a “broken hip”? Personally I think science will not get there, but that is just me.
Sorry to be a bit OT, but from my home in Sweden, I come from Denmark, I just listened to Dr. Dieter Köhler on the German TV channel ZDF, where the doctor spoke on behalf of 100 young doctors, who has come out with a counter report to the general report provoked from the health department in Germany. This counter report is going against the notion that NOX and NO2 from diesel engines/cars/trucks is a significant issue. Dr. Dieter Köhler says that it is morally wrong to drain society on an issue that on average takes max one day per year off average life, when tobaco, bad eating, etc. is a magnitude more damaging.
Dr. Dieter Köhler was for decades member of the group researching these issues for the health authorities, but has now realized that modern research is done very badly, with little weight on field research – a bit like CAGW where measured data is of no interest.
Yep… I’ll be 59 soon I started smoking at 11 and for the last 40 years smoke between 1 to 2 packs a day on average. That’s like saying if I never smoked I could live to be as old as my ancestor Methuselah.
Like you I started young,long before the Bic lighter. Lighters of the day didn’t last fourteen to twenty hours a day,so discovering how painful it can be to short a small wire between battery post can be,I resorted to lighting one from the other.
Quit John! I smoked for ten years and did quit a long time ago, and last year I became closer to 90 than I was to 70.
Around 12 years ago I was researching my ancestors and more often than not, those that didn’t die by accidents, lived closer to twice the life expectancy of their era. Of course finding records for most of them were nonexistent. Our census every 10 years is vague. Local census in the countryside of the state’s are even worse at keeping records of births and deaths. Frankly, diabetes is more likely to kill me Before smoking does. Too little is known about genetics links to things like cancer. That people die of cancers and have no history of any source of carcinogens in their lives. Or people live to be old and have smoked or been around carcinogens a lot. Tends to make the hype of it less than certain. People have genetic link’s to many ailments their families have. I think that when they discovered that bones of Neanderthals had cancer, and only a percentage of the population have Neanderthal DNA, that no other fossils have shown cancers… Leads me to think that’s a possibility. And that somehow something triggers those genes into action.
Your point, sir, is quite relevant as it addresses the fact that some ambitious researchers would prefer to rely upon models without actually doing enough (if any) field research. Because that is too much work that often (depending upon the issue), takes a long time to develop and reach conclusions upon. When you are a true believing warmist who thinks (in the words of one of our young Congressman) that we only have 12 years to do something about this perceived crisis, you tend to want to reach quick conclusions to confirm your hypothesis. Then these things tend to pile up one on top of another, and that results in a body of bad research that sets science back.
The consequences here are political, though, which makes it worse. The demagogues among us want to use this “research” to fundamentally reduce or destroy our political structures and our liberties. Without knowing (or acknowledging) that none of this “research” predicts the future as accurately as they think it does.
Norman is correct by pointing out the temperature turning point of 2003/04. From there on cooling will set in (no more increase in temps), or in other words, the temp plateau of 0.25° C above the UAH mean will continue (el Nino/Nina have to be counted out). Now, after the end of the 2016 el Nino, the 0.25° C level is back again. The plateau of Lord Monckton was set too low, the plateau is of the 2003/04 level.
Driving forces, see: PART 8 of Climate Pattern Recognition (1600-2050 AD) in
http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html
I think that the Media in its endless quest for advertising money, plus the politicians in their never ending quest for a vote or two. are the cause of this ever growing Green industry.
Sadly it may take a major crash, such as the 1930 tees Great Depression, and massive civil unrest, plus even War, to make people realise what a mess the Greens have caused to happen.
A rough parallel would be the religious wars of the 15th to the 17th century , until finally sanity put a end to them.
MJE
“Currently, UN Climate Change has initiated climate action initiatives in collaboration with two sectors:THE FASHION INDUSTRY AND SPORTS COMMUNITY. Both sectors’ voluntary stakeholders convene to develop a coherent, unified position on climate. Their work programmes aim to connect the diverse stakeholders within their respective industries, to identify new areas for action and to scale up existing initiatives that connect the value chain.” From the UNFCCC webSite Partners Section
Take your allies where you find them. This bunch of UN grubs has been worming away for decades on “connecting the value chain” as they put it. Unfortunately the fashion industry and sports community are a joke but their other list of pledged partners is not. Every big bank, corporation, and other institution you can imagine. That list has become more difficult to locate.
Fashion industry, sports community, connecting the value chain.
And the winner is:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=QehKXI2pAZKmwQL53ZbIDg&q=gena+mccarthy+curriculum+vitae&oq=gena+McCarthy+curriculum+&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
While Norm’s use of the term “CO2 Derangement Syndrome” initially sounds appealing to those (like me) who understand the CO2-based Climate Hustle underway by the UN, the Bernie Sanders/AOC politicans, the Leftist enablers in the media, investors looking to cash in on renewable energy (ex: Tom Steyer), and rentseeking scientists in need of grant, it really doesn’t capture what is going on.
Maurice Strong, Paul Ehrlich, and their fellow traveler John Holdren certainly don’t have “CO2 Derangement Syndrome.” Maybe by their efforts, and those of rentseeker Hansen and other pseudoscientists, do they hope to introduce a general sense of “Climate-related Derangement” in the population in order to achieve a political end state. That end state of course is ever more levels of socialism across developed Democrat capitalist countries and ultimately one-world socialist control, all guided by the kind knowing hands of UN bureaucrats.
Simply, Climate Derangement Syndrome is probably the better term, as it captures what the climate hustling socialists want to occur in the general public. Not a fear of CO2, but a fear bad weather as climate.
Don’t let them get away with the “climate change” focus. The whole scam is based on the idea of global warming driven primarily by man’s production of CO2.
The current level of warmth has been met or exceeded many times over the current Holocene. Allowing the alarmists to modelturbate over recent historical records is self-defeating.
Insightful comment Joel.
Plus Climate Derangement Syndrome does roll off the tongue a lot better, and that is important for any such term to gain traction.
However, Strong et al have caused 97% of it.
Climate Change (as defined by the IPCC’s working definition) is closer to 97% fake (as GCM cargo cultism) science, 3% real observation.
Joel,
Maurice Strong has a syndrome he will never get over — dead at age 86, November 27, 2015.
There is also the UN migration of which some reason destroy white Western Civilization, because of all the freedom, focus on the individual, stability, safety, historical strength of family, and spiritual rigidity not seen in other countries or cultures. This genuine community and strong culture poses the real threat to socialist Utopia where there likes of Gates, Rockefellers, Rothschild’s, Oprah’s, Soros, Bloomberg, Brown, etc cannot genuinely compete.
https://youtu.be/5WRszRZBfYw
Anyone notice why only white Western Nations are being invaded? It’s not coincidence.
This is a necessary pillar in this new world they so eagerly pursue. The family must be destroyed.
https://americanpolicy.org/2017/10/04/agenda-21-agenda-2030-there-is-no-difference/
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. Here it is! The root of the entire plan. Climate Change. How many scientific reports do real scientists have to present to show this is the greatest scam ever devised to create a reason for government to control every aspect of our lives? Well, here, let the Global Warming scare mongers tell you their true purpose in their own words:
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony – climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart (former Canadian Minister of the Environment). Justice built on a lie? And here is another quote to make it clear. “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth (President, UN Foundation). The end justifies the means! Notice that Mr. Wirth is as concerned with the economy as he is with the environment.
Most folks haven’t investigated the white destruction aspect but that will be too the detriment if their grandchildren. I’m not willing to go down quietly. This is the reason the Democrats/liberals/progressives changed their stance on borders and immigration in every major white Western Nations. They are collectivists. They want globalisation and they need multiculturalism to change the vote.
http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
Whites totally vote split but men favor conservatism and women, hedonism. Blacks vote over 90% Democrat (talk about uninformed voter bloc), Hispanics vote 70% Democrat. The policies they support are open borders, government control of everything, welfare, gun control, limits to free speech through hate speech law (even though they are clearly racist and their voting records prove it), responsible for most violent crime, most theft (outside of the government, of course), most rape, highest percentage of fatherless homes, highest percentage of school dropout, highest unemployment, and on and on.
They see going to shove everyone into ten major Urban hubs in America with most land being no human zones, patrolled by armed drones.. Cesspools of multiculturalism where just being white will get you harassed and likely killed.
It’s why they push Islam, because the track record is one of brutal slavery and violence towards non believers.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016364.html
Imagine that, the original article link is dead.
Look at France, look at Dearborn MI, look at the London, look at Denmark… This is what agenda 21/2030 is all about.
For anyone to think this is anything other than white genocide and a push for totalitarian world government with zero privacy (S.M.A.R
T. technology coupled with A.I., drones, biometric RFID monitoring, complete surveillance) that demonstrates to me you have spent zero time investigating.
Alex Jones is as right as Joseph McCarthy was.
Hence his near completed silencing.
the most obvious emergent pattern is that millennials have been indoctrinated since birth to believe in AGW, whereas 60y olds have more life experience and common sense and are not fooled.
Geolgy? Please correct
[fixed -mod]
I’m a geologist. My daughter, then 3 years old, was asked at school what Daddy did. She told everyone that I was a jellyfish.
Hah!
“One key element that is required to reach that tipping point is the greening of financial institutions and financial flows. In other words, the world’s financial movements must back the transition instead of continuing to finance fossil fuel-intensive and business-as-usual investments.
This means that financial institutions need to increasingly adjust their operations towards a sustainable, climate-safe future. This entails green financing, for example through green bonds, but it also entails measuring and reporting the greenhouse gas and environmental footprint of financial flows and investments.”
The money shot easy enough to find on the UNFCCC website. Money, money, money. Their list of government and private industry partners is longer than your arm. They are not hiding what they are doing. It’s all top down economics. This is why it’s all so hard to stop but we already know that.
Fossil fuel energy projects are still being funded in Africa, India and Asia. Where there is a need and a way to pay for it, capital is to be had. China, anyone?
but they are trying their flabby buts off and the roached science is their ammo. Actually there is a large group making money off the “try” so they keep after it. I have a yellow vest draped on the back of my office chair. Can’t wait to hit the streets with it.
When all the bankers back something, grab your wallet and run away, fast!
That’s why Mr. Market has a fix and it is called “shorting”. We need to list all financial Institutions and their Green Projects. List them here and provide a ‘weighting” so we can cash in on our shorts. GE comes to mind. A storied Industrial Icon and their marriage to Wind Turbines—how did that work out—and now a double down—going to zero. (sic)
Imagine the following CO2 saving scenario: Nothing flies and burns kerosene for a week.
-21 million of passengers will go nowhere
-350’000 flights would be cancelled
Will the worldwide economy survive the impact ? Hint, that Davos junket generates over 1’800 chartered/private flights.
… Each way.
Lol, sure Steven, albeit some might take a few days for shopping.
A galore for Zurich airport where most of them operate from.
Yes, most continental airports bill NoX emission charges according to a creatively complex calculation model.
Which for a twinjet could be as high as some preowned cars price tags.
A loophole since ICAO accepts emission charges and opposes to emission taxes.
The difference, a charge is supposed to contribute to the mitigation of the problem while a tax is supposed to discourage the problem.
So can someone explain how a NoX emission charge can mitigate the problem ? Like sorts of huge catalyst absorbers of NoX or capture of sorts ?
However if the flight plan mentions the presence on board of a reigning monarch. head of state or minister, then most charges are weaved including the approach fee.
The 2017 paper proposed a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991,that this turning point correlates with a temperature turning point in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650.
How long will we have to wait until the cooling, or its absence, is reasonably clear in the data?
Might already be. but the appropriate indicators will need to be identified.
For example, Arctic Sea Ice volume trends have been used by Catastrophists for a few decades as portents of climate demise. It might be useful to examine how climate stability or turnaround may be expressed there.
Steven,
Have a look at
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
There is no sign that volume of arctic sea ice is doing anything other than declining.
Be patient. When the AMO flips the graph will flip. Arctic Sea Ice nicely correlated to the AMO Index. Just close your eyes and before long magic will occur. It’s called natural variability.
In the satellite era, it generally grew from 72 to 79.
Percy, remember sea-ice has been satellite documented since 1979 and that year was the depth of 40yr cooling period,so arctic ice was then at its~20th century high extent.
We are at an interesting juncture and CO2 global warming theorists (and IPCC) are getting a bit testy and hyperbolic, a sign that confidence is declining. They have walked back a 2C “worry” threshold increase over that of 1950 about 4yrs ago to one of 0.8C over that of 1850 (after their 300% overshoot of warming relative to observations) and can’t muster the former zeal to sell this puny rise as dangerous. We dont hear much from the old guard these days. Mainly fresh new overemployed grads.
A long time. You have to be impressed by someone who claims in 2017 that the earth has been cooling since 2003 when 2016 was the warmest on record, 2015 was the 2nd warmest and 2017 was the 3rd warmest.
Percy,
Do you know the difference between weather (El Niño) and climate?
What data are referencing and how does 2018 fit in?
Tetris,
The GISS data shows a continual temperature rise plus annual variations caused by El Nino. I stopped in 2017 since that is when the paper mentioned by the author was published. And if you take a 5 year smoothing to remove some of the effects of El Nino years it becomes even more apparent that warming did not stop in 2003.
Percy: And what’s your thoughts on 2019 and 2020? Ever forward and upward? SSTs are looking pretty blue.
Percy Jackson
And 2018 was the 4th warmest. Seems like there is a trend there, albeit short.
The difference between the scientific report and the summary statement from the 1985 UNEP report should give everyone some pause. The fact that the mission of the IPCC was not to determine IF CO2 had the alleged impact, that THAT it had should make everyone suspicious.
We’re asked to view with great skepticism any research funded by “the fossil fuel lobby,” apparently because scientists will sell their talents for funding and Big Oil has nefarious motives. But we’re not supposed to view with any skepticism research funded by the UN, or any pro-advocacy group. The UN has been looking for ways to justify wealth transfers from rich nations to poor nations for almost as long as they’ve been trying to have federal authority over its members. Why should we not wonder if the UN may have ulterior motives since such advocacy seems to serve both those aims? Is the UN the only non-corrupt international diplomatic organization in the world? Have they somehow staffed themselves only with people having great ethics from the cesspool of the world’s socialistic politicians?
As for the scientists, they, their reports, and their findings are worthy of full consideration. But Science does play King of the Mountain, and works to squash and squelch contrarians. But if we only listened to the scientists themselves, we would hear far less alarm. It’s not scientists who are saying we’re all going to die in 12 years.
The UN would like to increase its power, and make some wealth transfers.
Governments would like to raise taxes.
Politicians like to pander for votes, and spend money.
Rent-seekers like to build windmills and other large infrastructure projects.
And activists like to feel superior, they want to save the world, as to tell everyone what to do.
But if it all made sense and held together that would be something. If we actually did face such a crisis, I would hope for these geniuses to offer us a better plan than “lets raise taxes on gas, build some windmills, and enact some wealth transfers.
Graph of UAH v6.0 temperatures shows that the temperature uptrend ended in about 2002-2005. Comparison with TPW (water vapor) and CO2 demonstrates what has been driving average global temperature.
Water vapor has increased about twice as much as calculated from temperature increase of liquid surface water. Both changed slope trend from up to flat about 2002-2005 interrupted by el Nino which peaked in Jan 2016. Both are still in downtrend. Global Warming appears to be over. Is all that snow/rain just bad weather?
Dan,
Not sure where you get that from. Dr. Spencer states that 2018 was “the 6th warmest year in the now-40 year satellite record of global lower tropospheric temperature” and the general trend since 1979 is 0.13 degrees per decade. There is no sign that global warming is over.
“There is no sign that global warming is over.”
There is also no sign that any warming is anything other than natural.
BINGO!
Especially when, at any time scale where there is a correlation, it has been shown that it is temperature that changes FIRST, and CO2 level which changes SECOND. The future doesn’t cause the past, so CO2 is definitely not the “cause” of anything.
And there is no sign, Percy, that global warming will be continuing into the future, at least at the levels ‘projected’ by the (inaccurate) UN IPCC climate models. Global temperatures over the past 8,000 years have been much greater than those of the present. Get a grip; that is if you aren’t one of those profiting from the scam.
Dr. Page. I’ve tried to tell you that you have your calculations wrong, and that the millennial peak is not due until ~ 2100 in several occasions.
This is IntCal13 radiocarbon record detrended with a 900-1100 band-pass filter applied:
And as you can see it identifies very well the millennial Eddy cycle, and most of the solar grand minima that belong to it. And you can see also that it won’t reach its new maximum until around 2100.
We have just entered a centennial low of the Feynman cycle. Moderate cooling at best until solar cycle 26. Then some more warming until the end of the century.
You should properly check it and correct it so you don’t have it wrong.
Javier I don’t do calculations based on mathematical formulas. I simply empirically pick the Millennial Turning Point at the last solar activity cycle peak at 1991 and correlate that with the Millennial Turning point temperature peak at 2004 +/-
Lean 2018 Fig 5.
This Lean figure shows an increase in TSI of about 2 W/m2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak . This TSI and solar magnetic field variation modulates the earths albedo via the GR flux and cloud cover. From the difference between the upper and lower quintiles of Fig 3 (in link below) a handy rule of thumb a la Fermi would conveniently equate this to a Northern Hemisphere temperature millennial cycle amplitude of about 2 degrees C with that amount of cooling probable by 2,650+/-.The MTP in cloud cover was at about 2000.
See also
and the Temperature MTP at
and
and
Fig 3
This Lean figure shows an increase in TSI of about 2 W/m2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak .
The Lean Figure is wrong. There is no ‘ever increasing background’.
https://leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Leif your slide 48 says” Solar Activity is now back to what it was a century ago” your slide
44 shows that solar activity at the spotless Maunder minimum was significantly lower than that. What more do you need?
What more do you need?
Slde 48 also says “No Modern Grand Maximum”.
The point is that there is no evidence for a 1000-yr ‘cycle’ peaking around 2000 AD.
Yes Modern Grand Maximum. Seven cycles in a row with above average solar activity.
The longest such period in at least 600 years.
Even star climatologists like Takuro Kobashi, Bo Vinther, and Thomas Blunier recognize the Modern Maximum and its effect on climate.
Kobashi, T., Box, J.E., Vinther, B.M., Goto‐Azuma, K., Blunier, T., White, J.W.C., Nakaegawa, T. and Andresen, C.S., 2015. Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(14), pp.5992-5999.
Here you are again misinforming people about this issue.
Yes Modern Grand Maximum
The IAU and the official sunspot record:
https://www.nature.com/news/spotty-sunspot-record-gets-a-makeover-1.18145
“We find no such Grand Maximum,” says Frédéric Clette, an astronomer at the Royal Observatory of Belgium in Brussels. “There has been nothing exceptional about the level of solar activity.”
He doesn’t find find because he isn’t looking.
What is exceptional about the level of solar activity during the Grand Maximum is its length. For 840 months between January 1935 and December 2004 the average monthly sunspot number is 108.5 (in the SILSO sunspot database). That’s 70 years.
Find me another 70-year period in the record that comes close to that and I will recognize that Clette and you are right and the Modern Maximum does not exist.
Or I can save you the trouble and show it to you.
This is what the graph should look like [if you were honest]:
or in terms of TSI [that is the only parameter that could have any influence on our climate]”
“Figure 2. Four centuries of reconstructed decadal sunspot numbers on the SILSO V2 scale. We have direct observations of sunspot numbers (bluish triangles), of sunspot group numbers (GN* bluish circles; the asterisk * signifies reconstructed values using the regression coefficients given in Table 1 below), of daily variation ranges (rY* bluish squares), of ring current strength (IDV* bluish stars), and of the corrected cosmogenic series (Wu* blue diamonds scaled up by a factor of 2, as per Figure 1; the original series is shown by the pink squares in the middle of the graph). Gray dots with a yellow center show the average of all the messages (with standard deviations shown by red diamonds at the bottom of the Figure). The number of values, N, in each average is marked by the thin dashed gray curve.”
From https://leif.org/research/Nine-Millennia-of-Multimessenger-Solar-Activity.pdf
That’s so funny! Running a moving average over a dataset is being dishonest.
Your efforts to hide the Modern Maximum are pathetic. It is the longest period of above average solar activity in the record. That is a fact.
And well-known climatologists that aren’t suspicious of being biased, like Kobashi, Vinther, White, and Blunier, recognize the climatic effects of the Modern Maximum.
You are such a loser.
the Modern Maximum
Ah, you are beginning to walk back. No more GRAND Modern Maximum. Progress…
Every century has had its ‘maximum’. None anymore grand than the others.
Running a moving average over a dataset is being dishonest.
Not at all. The dishonesty lies in cherry-picking an obsolete dataset. And in only showing a piece of the data.
It is not a centennial maximum. It is a maximum over at least 600 years. It is the maximum in the sunspot dataset since 1749, and we know that solar activity was very low most of the time between 1400 and 1750.
The dataset is not obsolete. It is the official one that can be downloaded from SILSO and is updated every month:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt
And now you don’t know how to read a graph. It starts on January 1749 as the dataset, but as it is a 70-year average and it has not been centered, as it is obvious because it ends in 2018, the first point is not available until January 1819 and is the 840-point average between those two dates.
It starts on January 1749 as the dataset, but as it is a 70-year average and it has not been centered
Both values are carefully picked without proper explanation and your dishonesty comes in especially by omitting [the oldest trick in the book] the first 50 years of the 18th century where activity was high. Here is the correct and honest graph:
It is clear that the recent maximum is not particularly GRAND.
You can also compare with
Again, no modern grand maximum
Bullshit!
I used the entire sunspot monthly database as it is available at SILSO. It starts on January 1749 if you care to check at the link provided.
You really go to the extreme of defaming somebody that shows how full of wind you are.
Instead of playing with graphs why don’t you show a 70 year period that has similar activity as 1935-2005? Because you can’t obviously. It doesn’t exist in the sunspot record. Maybe if you keep fudging with your group number for the 18th century, after enough adjusting it will show whatever you want.
Bullshit!
Your lame attempt at profanity reflects badly on you.
When averaging over many years it makes no sense to use monthly values.
Better to use the yearly values at http://www.sidc.be/silso/infosnytot
This is the correct graph, if you do it right
No grand modern maximum.
As you can also see here:
Instead of playing with graphs why don’t you show a 70 year period that has similar activity as 1935-2005?
Easy. The Sunspot Group Numbers will suffice:
Average GN 1723-1793 = 5.50
Average GN 1935-2005 = 5.44
Only in your manipulated unofficial record. The official SILSO yearly sunspot dataset at
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
shows the following:
Average SN 1723.5-1793.5 = 92.45
Average SN 1935.5-2004.5 = 108.49
A 17% higher average for the modern maximum.
A 17% higher average for the modern maximum.
Progress! You now concede that there was no GRAND modern Maximum.
The difference between the 18th and 20th centuries is smaller than the error bar for the 18th and is thus not statistically significant.
SILSO has this to say about the Group Number:
There is no agreement yet between those recently published series, mostly concerning the long-term evolution over centuries. We just note here that there are two “families” of group numbers sharing similar characteristics:
– the “backbone” and “error testing” series, without steady secular trend in solar cycle amplitudes, which also agree well with the sunspot number series.
– the “active-days” series and original V1.0 series, with a rising trend from the 18th to the 20th century that does not match the sunspot number series.
The Active-Days series is easily shown to be unreliable:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.01154.pdf
“We identify several pairs of ‘equivalent’ observers defined as observers with equal or nearly equal ‘observational threshold’ areas of sunspots on the solar disk as determined by the ‘Active Days Fraction’ method [e.g. Willamo et al., 2017]. For such pairs of observers, the ADF-method would be expected to map the actually observed sunspot group numbers for the individual observers to two reconstructed series that are very nearly equal and (it is claimed) represent ‘real’ solar activity without arbitrary choices and deleterious, error-accumulating ‘daisy-chaining’. We show that this goal has not been achieved (for the critical period at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th), rendering the ADF-methodology suspect and not reliable nor useful for studying the long-term variation of solar activity.”
An ongoing workshop at ISSI is dedicated to resolving the issue with some progress already achieved:
https://leif.org/research/Re-analysis-Wolfer-Backbones.pdf
I do not participate in order to dispel the notion that the new series is my series.
A version 3 of the series is foreseen for this year (2019).
Some historical discussion can be found in
https://leif.org/research/Cliver-Herbst-2018.pdf
Figures 12 and 15 are of particular interest.
Solar activity on the 600-yr time scale:
A 600‐year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland
A.‐M. Berggren et al., 2 June 2009 https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038004 :
“[1] Despite the extensive use of 10Be as the most significant information source on past solar activity, there has been only one record (Dye‐3, Greenland) providing annual resolution over several centuries. Here we report a new annual resolution 10Be record spanning the period 1389–1994 AD, measured in an ice core from the NGRIP site in Greenland. NGRIP and Dye‐3 10Be exhibits similar long‐term variability, although occasional short term differences between the two sites indicate that at least two high resolution 10Be records are needed to assess local variations and to confidently reconstruct past solar activity. A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spörer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.
Solar activity for the 1935-2004 Modern Maximum is as high as it gets. The 11-yr Schwabe cycle still operates during solar prolonged maxima while it doesn’t during solar grand minima. Solar activity is asymmetric with a strong bias towards low-activity deviations. The 70-year Modern Solar Maximum is the opposite to the 70-year Maunder Minimum, except that one is a 30% increase over long-term average sunspot number, and the other is a 100% decrease. You don’t seem to understand solar variability that much.
I don’t care much about what SILSO has to say. Sunspot number count is a semi-quantitative proxy for solar activity that ignores sunspot size. Sunspot group number is even less quantitative as it ignores the number of sunspots in a group. Underlying both is the undemonstrated assumption that sunspot average size and average number of sunspots in a group is constant from cycle to cycle. There is an important disagreement between the relative activity from SC21 to SC22. Sunspot number places SC21 above SC22, but the Greenwich sunspot area dataset and the 10.7 cm flux dataset place both at very similar activity with a slightly higher activity for SC22. This indicates the underlying assumptions to the semi-quantitative proxy are likely to be wrong.
You are essentially wasting your time with the group dataset. It is too unreliable to settle scientific questions and most researchers will prefer cosmogenic isotopes datasets.
As you have defended here to extenuation, the 10Be record is too contaminated with climate factors to be depended on, so it is hilarious that you will now raise it as an argument to defend that recent solar activity has not been unusual for the past 600 years. I guess you forget what you say.
11-yr Schwabe cycle still operates during solar prolonged maxima while it doesn’t during solar grand minima.
Right off the bat you demonstrate your ignorance [amplified by the rest of your comment].
The 11-yr cycle modulates the cosmic ray flux and was indeed operating during the Maunder Minimum [possibly even stronger than today]. This is well-known and not controversial, see e.g.
Solar Phys (2014) 289:4701–4709 DOI 10.1007/s11207-014-0587-6 Cosmogenic Isotope Variability During the MaunderMinimum, S.V. Poluianov·I.G. Usoskin·G.A. Kovaltsov :
“The amplitude of the 11-year cycle measured in the cosmogenic isotope 10Be during the Maunder Minimum is comparable to that during the recent epoch of high solar activity. ”
There is an important disagreement between the relative activity from SC21 to SC22.
Not important. Any difference is at the noise level, e.g.
Sunspot number places SC21 above SC22, but the Greenwich sunspot area dataset
More ignorance. The Greenwich data stopped in 1976.
At a level so low that it didn’t produce sunspots, so possibly at the level of the 2009 solar minimum. I remember you saying the same to argue that the Maunder Minimum didn’t have a lower level of activity than the 2009 minimum. You keep forgetting things.
The argument stands. The limit on how high solar activity can go from the average level is much lower than the limit on how low it can go. From 82.4 to 108.5 sunspots per month in a maximum; from 82.4 to 0 sunspots per month in a minimum. You appear to ignore this basic asymmetry in the Sun’s behavior. But then you have selective knowledge.
Oh gosh! You really have to tell NASA! They have it going to September 2016.
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/sunspot_area.txt
As I said, selective ignorance coupled to profound bias. What a mess for a scientist.
At a level so low that it didn’t produce sunspots, so possibly at the level of the 2009 solar minimum
Our observational data is too poor to conclude that. The cosmic ray modulation does not have that problem and shows that the cycle was operating as normally.
“Measurements of 10Be concentration in the Dye 3 ice core show that magnetic cycles persisted throughout the Maunder Minimum” from
Beer, Jürg; Tobias, Steven; Weiss, Nigel
Solar Physics, v. 181, Issue 1, p. 237-249 (1998)
The argument stands
No, you have no argument, and no understanding as you repeatedly so successfully demonstrate. I doubt if further attempts of educating you will have much effect.
You really have to tell NASA
they know: http://fenyi.solarobs.csfk.mta.hu/GPR/
“The Greenwich Royal Observatory compiled the Greenwich Photoheliographic Results (GPR) sunspot catalogue between 1874 and 1976”
The argument stands
And again you are economical with the facts.
F10.7 and the Group Number agree within their error bars (standard deviations):
Your comment about asymmetry is pure nonsense.
As anybody just looking at the record can plainly see.
I see why you have it wrong. The millennial cycle is in its twelfth oscillation in the Holocene, but you are ignoring all that information and selecting only one reference for the last oscillation from records that can’t be trusted much. To more correctly determine the duration and phase of the cycle it is best to use as many oscillations as possible. By restricting yourself to the last one you increase your error. The 21st century is likely to see as much or more solar activity than the 20th.
Javier Again – I just use the actual Holocene cycles – from the 2017 paper
Fig. 2 Greenland Ice core derived temperatures and CO2 from Humlum 2016 (8)
The millennial cycle peaks are obvious at about 10,000, 9,000, 8,000, 7,000, 2,000, and 1,000 years before now as seen in Fig. 2 (8) and at about 990 AD in Fig. 3 (9). It should be noted that those believing that CO2 is the main driver should recognize that Fig. 2 would indicate that from 8,000 to the Little Ice Age CO2 must have been acting as a coolant.
Dr. Page, you are doing it wrong. No wonder you get the wrong result.
For well known reasons the effect of solar activity on Greenland climate is opposite. High solar activity causes Greenland cooling, and low solar activity causes Greenland warming.
Kobashi, T., Box, J.E., Vinther, B.M., Goto‐Azuma, K., Blunier, T., White, J.W.C., Nakaegawa, T. and Andresen, C.S., 2015. Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(14), pp.5992-5999.
You cannot use GISP2 to study the millennial cycle.
And the periodicity that Ole Humlum finds in GISP2 is not the millennial cycle. It is 1130 years. Over the Holocene it means it would be one entire cycle out of phase with the millennial cycle. The origin of the 1130-year periodicity in GISP2 is unknown. And last but not least, if you are using Humlum’s cycle it very clearly peaks in 2100, as figure 8 of his paper shows (it even marks the now with a dashed line):
Humlum, O., Solheim, J. E., & Stordahl, K. (2011). Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change. Global and Planetary Change, 79(1-2), 145-156.
And finally, if you are following Scafetta’s 983-yr astronomical cycle, that one also peaks in 2100, as the green line in his figure 7 of this paper shows:
Scafetta, N. (2014). The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.0193.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0193.pdf
So you are alone in defending the millennial cycle has already peaked, and using bad info for that. I know you won’t, but you should reconsider. At least you have been told.
The millennial cycle is in its twelfth oscillation in the Holocene
No, there is no such cycle [at least not in solar activity]:
From https://leif.org/research/Nine-Millennia-of-Multimessenger-Solar-Activity.pdf
What would you know? You wouldn’t find a cycle in bicycle.
When we kids got tummy upsets my mother used to call it the “Collywobbles”.
Perhaps this Syndrome should be called the “ CO2ywobbles”?
After all, in scientific terms the results appear to be similar.
Seems we have a bit of a pandemic on our hands.
Doesn’t quite roll off the tongue. How about the “Gassywobbles”? It could also apply to a bad burrito, or vindaloo.
I am always very bemused by AOC’s Green New Deal and the concept of taxing the “rich” at 70%. What is missing is the definition of what “rich” is. Not to mention that even if they are “rich” their 70% taxable income will NOT be enough money to cover the programs she envisages. Just be because you are worth 20 million (throwing out a number), does not mean you can take 70% of that. Just declared income. If you are “rich” and smart, often that is alot less. Sooner later, the definition of “rich” will be anyone with a job. Including her!
AussieBear
In the late 60’s/early 70’s, the higher rate income tax rate in the UK was 98% (from memory, I were but a lad).
Unsurprisingly we had what was called ‘the brain drain’ when the wealthy fled the country, along with their businesses and their money.
The UK fell flat on it’s arse.
Over taxing the successful, clever and wealthy is never a good idea.
“Brain Drain”? No Sir. The “rich” moved their unpaid taxes to the Treasure Islands – see
treasureislands.org/ The Men who Stole the World, by Shaxson.
AOC obviously has no idea about this- the modern British Empire. Even when an Integrity Initiative Brit-for-Bernie, interfered in the election., never mind the Steel Dodgy Dossier against Trump.
Poor millennials!
I’ve reached the point with AGW scaremongering where it’s obvious that common sense no longer prevails and the MSM controls the message/propaganda. I feel safe in my belief that the scam will eat itself because people will be more willing to adapt to slight temperature increases, if they occur, regardless of the cause than do without affordable and readily available energy. Convincing people that CO2 is the root of all evil will be easier than convincing them that turning back the clock of progress and jeopardizing their standard of living and health without fossil fuels is necessary. So far we have a few wind mills and solar panels and some taxes but people aren’t affected to any large extent. What’s happening in France is just a small window into the reality of what people will accept. Or not.
Madness in crowds, sanity regained one at a time.
It has reached the pint MSM has lost control – see the buzzfeed debacle just this week.
And as Percy Shelley said – there is an increase in the power to grasp great principles when the establishment collapses. It spreads in a way that only a poet can show – they are the unacknowledged legislators.
Here, in the Netherlands, it’s even worse than in France: We have a climate law accepted. We have to go without coal and gas in 2040. Taxes are raised on all fossil fuels since jan 2019. All political-rationality -contrdictio in terminis- is gone. The shame game works wonders. Nobody suspects UN here. They are above any criticism. It’s quite scary.
From the article: “To this end in 1985 UNEP organized a meeting of scientists at Villach in Austria in 1985 to see if they could show that CO2 was dangerous. The scientific report 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.”
And it is still not possible today, 34 years later. Don’t be fooled by alarmists who claim every weather event is now exaserbated by CO2. They couldn’t prove this claim if their lives depended on it.
Our obsession with the end of the world could be a distant genetic memory of the late bronze age collapse
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/16/collapse/
I think that level of genetic programming is much more ancient than the Bronze Age circa 4000 years ago.
Social interactions, driving ever larger H. sapien communities, provided a security-in-numbers advantage for survival and propagation. The development of pastoral domestication and farming agriculture had clear advantages over hunter-gatherer tribes, especially as farming agriculture freed-up more men and summer-time for raiding parties to secure lands and the beasts on them for their protein.
So I would try at least going back to the one of at least two bottleneck events in human evolution ~70,000 yr ago.
The Great Toba Eruption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Two bottlenecks in the human genome seem apparent from studies of genome nucleotide diversity and then comparing with the Great Apes that never left Africa.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842629/
Apply genetic programming to Great Apes please – it has nothing to do with human civilization.
We are at ~7.5 billion now and on the way to 25 billion, when we keep the unique human progress going – something Great Apes cannot do. There is an imperative – only vaguely conscious. We somehow know it we fail to acquire new principles we will collapse, but very confusedly. MSM plays on that confusion.
Empire primary strategy was always exactly that. which is why they all collapsed.
The whole genome narrative, while chemically exact, sows major confusion – where is the gene for fire, agroindustry, pray tell?
The entire climate-circus is just so an imperial confusion trick, an attack on science – Oreskes is just a Kant wannabee.
As the Gilets Jaunes, Yellow Jackets say, Paris and the big cities are obsessed with the end of the world – the rest of us about the end of the month paycheck.
My daughter brought home Oreskes’ book from her Junior year in college, it was required reading for her environmental science class. I read the book and was absolutely aghast. As just a singular example, Oreskes hails China in the fictional future as a paragon of virtue and a world leader in Green Energy.
On multiple occasions over the last 5 years I have tried and tried to explain atmospheric science to my daughter. I have a PhD in chemistry and I am the Chief Technologist at the aerospace company that built the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite instruments on the Suomi NPP and JPSS spacecraft. I’ve given talks on “CO2: Why All the Conflict” all over the country. My daughter dismisses me out of hand, becomes irate and screams at me that I am a climate denier. I’ve had the same treatment from some colleagues at my company as well.
It is the single greatest regret of my life, and Oreskes’ book is very much a part of my daily sadness.
It is astounding to see PhD’s fumbling and made utter fools of by Kant’s Critique. I strongly advise looking up Heinrich Heine’s “Religion and Philosophy” where he takes the omni-destructor Kant head on. Now Kant is revered in the hallowed halls of academia , next to the shade of Bertrand Russell, slouching in the shadows. Oreskes is a mere shallow copy of Kant.
Or even better have a look at Edgar Allan Poe’s https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mellonta_Tauta :
TO THE EDITORS OF THE LADY’S BOOK:
I have the honor of sending you, for your magazine, an article which I hope you will be able to comprehend rather more distinctly than I do myself. It is a translation, by my friend, Martin Van Buren Mavis, (sometimes called the “Toughkeepsie Seer”) of an odd-looking MS. which I found, about a year ago, tightly corked up in a jug floating in the Mare Tenebrarum—a sea well described by the Nubian geographer, but seldom visited now-a-days, except for the transcendentalists and divers for crotchets.
Truly yours,
EDGAR A. POE
Quote : “Aries Tottle’s greatest disciples were one Neuclid, and one Cant.”
Any kid can make an utter fool of a PhD who refuses to check what is going on. It is not a service to science to ignore the attack and preach.
“My daughter dismisses me out of hand, becomes irate and screams at me that I am a climate denier. I’ve had the same treatment from some colleagues at my company as well.”
That’s sad. A terrible consequence of the Big CAGW Lie. We can thank the Climategate conspirators for this situation.
Reminder her EVERY DAY that she is using fossil energy and ask for a moral justification of it, point out how she is a hypocrite, that will begin to shut her up.
I’m with Leif.
In all of the time I’ve been visiting this site (which is nearly everyday since it started) I have never seen convincing evidence that sun spot cycles have anything but an accidental and sporadic correlation with temperatures. Nor have I seen a reasonable mechanism that would explain the correlation even if it existed.
That doesn’t mean that CO2 explains the modest rise in temps over the last century and a half.
The rise in temps is not out of the range of expected values from past historic temperature rises.
In other words, not buying into the sun spot/temperature correlation theory doesn’t mean you have to believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the main driver of climate or is even a problem.
A remarkable parody of Newton’s “hypothesis non-fingo”.
Amazing how many here do cameo Master-of-the-Mint acts.
LOL!
You know, remarkable environmental changes take place on Pluto when it gets closest to the Sun.
Pluto is a great distance from the Sun.
If the Sun has such drastic effects on Pluto depending on its orbital position, it is reasonable to think this also happens with the Earth.
As far as I know, there is no correlation between sunspots and Pluto’s weather. Orbital position, and the inclination of the planet, seems to be much more important factors..
Interesting the way these historical overviews avoid mentioning Margaret Thatcher.
https://john-daly.com/history.htm
CO2 DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
I’m very impressed with the title and historical breadth of *this* essay. Derangement is the proper word to use, and it’s time to identify it as such without mincing words. Since the marginalization of nuclear energy and misanthropic climate activism go hand-in-hand, I sketched out a short essay in 2014 along this direction but Dr. Norman Page has done the heavy lifting. Well done!
Though it seems harsh, it’s time to judge this condition sternly and push back. Survival is at stake, and the brain-dead presumption of warming is interfering with the preparations we should be making for a possible cooling.
It comes down to greed… but not all conspiratorial or financial. We have a basic human craving to be ‘right’ about at least some things… and modern humans who are awash in life’s drudgery are ever on the lookout for activism-as-entertainment — ironically — to relieve stress. Being convinced you are ‘right’ about something relieves stress, you can stick your belief on a shelf like a trophy to show others. Debating rightness with others becomes a sport.
So when merchants of activism come around to hawk their merchandise it is an excellent time to buy. We are no longer small bands foraging and gathering, no longer reliant on local agriculture, relatively disease-free with low child mortality. The modern template of technology presently reliant on fossil fuels is working, for now.
Scientists are generally free to specialize, inventors pursue their dreams, for now. An excellent recipe for innovation but also fertile for activism. For a time activist fervor might march in step with science and milestones of achievement such as the “Space Race” that culminated on footsteps upon the Moon, and improvements of medicine. But what happens when activists and scientists intermingle?
Imagine a world where scientists have all the money and activists come begging to them for funding. I hear you all laughing now, please bear with me. Would ‘science’ apply its own methods, perhaps some lofty informed assessment of risk and reward, in deciding? It was not long ago when this was the case in an industrializing world. As the situation reverses and science becomes a backwater in these global economic and political empires, what methods do you suppose activists using to decide how science is funded? Should we even be surprised?
In this fiat world consensus has become currency and persuasion is wealth. Affluence guilt is a vast reservoir to tap, especially when you can impose regimes of taxation that skim all income levels. So the discerning modern should be keenly suspicious, but suspicion is being bred out of the race outright using an ancient tactic, the ‘moral high ground’. It is a weapon of emotion used with precision, though unscientifically.
If I come to you asking for a tiny belief and convince you that joining in the effort is a single step onto higher moral ground, you’d gladly take it. Then perhaps another concession, one you begin to recognize is a little iffy. You’d take that also, especially if surrounded by people striding in that direction. Years go by and the high ground rises.
Some time before you reach the apex of that ‘moral high ground’ suppose you realize on the summit is a hasty-built fort built to defend it with a mixed bag of self-serving precepts, many that only deserve to be theories: CO2 is the primary driver of warming, the practice of estimating/averaging global temperature is sacrosanct practice, computer models are infallible, humans are evil, this-and-that needs to be done, and any means to THIS end.
You are now surrounded by activists not scientists. You may mingle with the few scientists on the hill who have direct knowledge of the topic and even share your misgivings on the tenacity of the arguments now broadcast as consensus… but in whispers. To any who dare challenge this moral high ground, fire and brimstone rains from above.
Truly CO2 is a factor in such systems, but now we have a pretend-world where it is presented as the de-facto factor. Activists whispered, “it’s okay, this is a means to an end” at first but it has become more than that. It may sound silly, but imagine some cartoon world where an evil scientist-activist declares,
“Let’s spawn and breed an army of lay scientists who are more comfortable discussing CO2 than water vapor, and unleash them upon the world!”
This is now the plain truth. So with this lay army and their influence far and wide, CO2 is the drumbeat of their march. You are free to discuss water vapor, Milankovitch cycles and solar influence of course but flying monkeys are encircling the moral high ground, ready to attack if you should try to ‘relegate’ CO2 in any way.
Then there is the massif — countless academic papers that begin with the presumption of warming (some even carry the phrase ‘CO2 induced warming’ for extra spice) and are academically sound even if the base presumption lacks solid evidence. Creatures and plants are subject to various torments and if the results are not dramatic enough the torture is stepped up until spectacular results are achieved… then the result repackaged to become a statistical salve that is routinely applied topically in tiny amounts on large populations, to create ‘integer death counts’ for headlines and extinction event warnings. These become the convenient base for scare-stories and the talking points of activists… who simply do not realize how many tenuous presumptions are hidden from them.
The rational future of humankind’s response forward hinges on our ability to survive both warming and cooling. We have the Ice Ages as clear evidence that we are presently prepared that modern civilization could not even survive a complete natural cycle of global climate. Even if we should desire to strangle plant life by reducing atmospheric CO2 we are not equipped with enough energy to do so, industrially. It’s all blather.
That’s why climate and Energy are so entwined in my mind, and I am a ‘simple-minded’ activist for nuclear energy. I recognize the present derangement of the ‘climate moral high ground’ as the same phenomenon, perhaps the very same real estate, as the anti-nuclear sentiment. Or derangement. As I said to candidate Trump in a 2016 letter,