By Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD
Senior Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs
Founder, Climate Lab Pty Ltd
Visit the Blog www.jennifermarohasy.com
As the editor of the last book, and the next book, in the Institute of Public Affairs’ Climate Change: The Facts series I spend a lot of time pondering the nature of ‘facts’.
A fact is something that has become known as true. A fact may be dependent on accumulated knowledge. Facts are considered superior to an opinion or an interpretation. But sometimes the facts change.
There is the famous quote variously attributed to John Maynard Keynes, and sometimes Winston Churchill: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
Right up until the city of Brisbane in my home state of Queensland was flooded back in January 2011 — flooded following the emergency release of water from the overflowing Wivenhoe Dam — the considered opinion from Australian experts was that the dams would never fill again. This was accepted by many as a ‘fact’.
After that exceptionally wet summer, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology continued to forecast below average rainfall even for Australia’s Murray Darling Basin through the exceptionally wet spring of 2016. Now there is drought again across much of eastern and southern Australia, and what farmers really need to know is: “When will it rain again?”
Of course, droughts in Australia always break, and with flooding rains. But there is no indication from the Bureau when we can expect this break.
Many claim such flood events are unpredictable. In which case, we arguably don’t have a scientific theory of climate. A scientific theory is something substantiated: a body of facts that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation and that can be confirmed through accurate prediction.
There is no doubt that the Western World is currently being significantly affected by climate change activism. But, the more rational amongst us — who are not necessarily those with a more formal education — can perhaps already see that very little of what is currently being articulated by this populist movement resembles fact.
Currently what we see from activists is more prophecy than numerically verifiable prediction— certainly no testing of falsifiable theory through what might be considered the scientific method.
Indeed, the leaders of the current populist movement against climate change seem unaware of the history of science or the history of climate change embedded in the geological record.
And while obsessed with climate, they seem unable to make a practical forecast for next week or next year when it comes to issues such as when the drought here in Australia might break.
This is a long introduction to the next book in the IPA’s Climate Change: The Facts series, which will be available for sale early next year.
It will be a book by dissidents, obsessed with facts, who understand that the climate is always changing.
As Editor, I get to choose chapter authors. The four most important chapters will be on ‘water’ and it is my intention that they will move us towards a new theory of climate.
The four chapters are variously about cosmic rays, cloud cover, tropical convection and water vapour. Indeed, water — in its many forms rather than carbon dioxide — will be dominant in the new emerging theory of climate.
This theory perhaps has its origins in a little noted paper written by Richard Lindzen, Ming- Dah Chou and Arthur Hou back in 2001. It got physicists like Peter Ridd thinking.
Dr Ridd is contributing one of the four seminal water chapters in the next book. He will explain how deep convection, which can be thought of as a huge heat engine — is an alternative pathway for the upward transfer of energy from greenhouse gases. The other important chapters in this section on water are by Henrik Svensmark, Geoffrey Duffy and the great Richard Lindzen.
I am seeking your support for the book’s publication.
The IPA has a dedicated appeal page at www.ipa.org.au/cctf2020.
If you can spare more than A$400, you have the option of your name being printed in the book. I am proud that will be my own name will on the front cover of the book alongside Duffy, Svensmark, Ridd, Lindzen and other fine scientists.
The last book in the ‘Climate change the facts’ series sold more than 30,000 copies. It has made a difference, in a small way.
My hypothesis is that this next book will sell three times as many copies, and eventually be recognised as articulating the beginning of a new theory of climate, with Peter Ridd’s contribution significantly building on the earlier work of Richard Lindzen.
But these four water chapters will be controversial, with technically complex elements, but the book will also include chapters that are easier to digest, and a few that are more philosophical.
One of the most popular chapters in the last book (our 2017 edition) — and the least technical, and most literary chapter — was by legendary poet and writer, Clive James, which
was an amusing poke at ‘climate change’ and catastrophism as popular culture.
My colleague at the IPA, Scott Hargreaves has already written something literary for the next edition (CCTF2020) and he has drawn on Clive’s James’ translation of Dante’s Inferno to help describe the nine circles of ‘climate skepticism’. This will perhaps be the last chapter in this next 2020 edition. What Scott has written is so insightful and also fun.
There will be about 20 chapters in total in the next book, including several chapters on Antarctica. So of course, there is a chapter on penguins, and perhaps two on volcanoes.
Antarctica is twice the size of Australia, and has a complex climate that is central to understanding global atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns — including drought and flood cycles in Australia.
The history of science suggests that paradigms are never disproven until they are replaced. So, now more than ever, it is important that you back this book that will challenge the current consensus, which is the current dominant paradigm.
Physicist and philosopher, the late Thomas Kuhn, explained that competition within segments of the scientific community is the only process that historically has ever actually results in the replacement and then eventual rejection of one previously accepted paradigm or theory. It is so important that alternative voices are heard, that there is opportunity for a new theory of climate to emerge.
If you are at all skeptical of the catastrophist’s claims that the current drought in Australia is the very worst on record, sea levels at record highs, and the planet about to melt — and most importantly, if you would like to contribute in a practical way to a fact-based new theory of climate change — then make a financial contribution to the IPA’s next book in the ‘Climate Change the Facts’ series via the dedicated appeal page at: www.ipa.org.au/cctf2020
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
Ends.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I hope this addresses the main variable in this that really drives it all. Solar output variability. There are so many things that interact that have varying degrees of inertia and others not entirely understood. Magnetic field of the planet that varies and how it might impact things. One thing is for certain, it is easy to blow the “settled” science claims out of the water since there are too many things that fail to meet their predictions and models.
With respect to the author, do a little philosophy before interpreting the term ‘fact’ in such a loose and colloquial term.
Misunderstanding what us fact, what is hypothesis and what is knowledge is at the heart of how we are trcked with fake science and indeed successfully lied to.
Paraphrasing Wittgenstein facts are ‘whatever is the case’. That is, the underlying reality of some sort of Existence – no matter whether we comprehend it or not – is the “One True Fact”.
Facts that are mapped by a metaphysical process into experience are what the scientist knows as ‘data’ – possibly as near true fact as it is possible to get. Data reflect the underlying Reality, but data are always measured in terms of human concepts like mass space, time and so on, so it is less’ pure’.
Algorithmic compressions of data by the use of hypothetical propositions, leads us to abstract knowledge. What do I mean by that? Simply, experience of everything at every moment in its entirety is not possible for us humans. So we simplify – we ‘compress’ the totality of the days experience into e.g. “I went to see a show today”. The salient features of human interest are remembered as part of the narrative we store in memory, whilst the actuality of “I trod on 17,234 blades of grass and 15 ants today”. is ignored and discarded. Compression takes terabytes of experience each day and retains only what the human considers useful or singular. The algorithm we use is ‘what is of human interest’.
So we see a hierarchy of ‘facts’ here. At the bottom is the incomprehensible mystery of existence . Incontrovertibly a fact, but otherwise unknowable.
Out of that we extract experience. For those who believe in the existence of a physical world with physical beings, in a space time matrix, that this the experience of being alive. The direct sensory experience. I note that I consider this to be only one interpretation, but since for most it is THE interpretation, it will suffice as an example.
Experience is then further compressed into a model of the world, containing objects that are discriminated by the mind into all sorts of grades and the whole shebang mapped into time and space and relationships over time then become expressions of causality and there we have it. The rational materialist’s world view. A human view of reality. Into which whatever classifications we use can turn experience into objects, relationships into causality and so on. An a world view in time is what I call a narrative. A story – a human story – of what the world ‘is really made of’.
And the underlying reality of ‘whatever is the case’ becomes the phenomenal world of the scientists in which the One True Fact becomes ‘data’.
So within the Rational Materialistic world view, facts are ‘stuff that really happened’. Data. Not theories. Not constructions about the data, Just the data.
What then are scientific theories?
Abstractions. Further levels of very precise algorithmic compressions. That we arrive at by a weird use of the imagination. Knowledge, and especially scientific knowledge, consists of creating an imaginary world that cannot be sensed directly, but which represents the underlying forces that govern the behaviour of the world.
So we imagine, as Newton did, a set of forces that govern the behaviour of inert physical objects, test it and find it is accurate enough to be useful, at which point we say, absolutely wrongly, that ‘gravity’ is a ‘scientific fact’.
It is not.
It is a hypothesis. It is one step more abstract from the data it modelled. Because it seems to work we elevate it to a ‘theory’. Because its is a neat algorithmic compression of experience into a simply remembered narrative we call it ‘human knowledge’.
So what a good scientific theory represents is something 4 steps removed from Reality. The One True Fact. It is a model that helps us understand relationships within the physical world., which is a model derived itself from our experience, which is a mapping if whatever the underlying reality actually is.
And this is where the misuse of language befuddles us.
we glibly talk of ‘facts’ at every level. but these are not the same thing. There is a hierarchy of knowledge. As we move up it we exchange accuracy for utility.
At the base level beyond our consciousness of it the One True Fact is ‘it is’ .
At the level we get to be conscious of it the less true but more useful facts are ‘stuff is and we are and stuff happens’.
higher up the model hierarchy we get to the world of ordinary senses…our experience of life as the interactions of things that affect is as people and people one with another and so on.
And furthest from the truth, but the most useful we have that collection of ‘stuff that works’ we call science.
The world is not turtles, it is models all the way down. Models of models of models of something beyond experience and somehow it all just about works
At each level facts are relative to that level – but the great misuse of language is to take a ‘fact’ at one level and then develop an argument as if it were a fact at a different level. This is one dimensional thinking at its most dangerous.
To say ‘Anthropogenic climate change is a fact’ when it’s not, it is at best a nearly refuted hypothesis, and certainly not in the same space in the knowledge tree as ‘it rained today’ is an example of sophistry and a particularly evil form of it that used to be called ‘black magic’ but which we call today ‘marketing’. Or Terry Pratchett calls ‘headology’.
Getting people to believe in stuff because believing in stuff is how we operate. And believing stuff that other people want you to believe in is how you control people, make them buy what you want, behave how you want and vote the way you want, without having a police state.
I don’t mean God made everything and His will Passeth Man’s understanding. I dealt with that, without introducing personalities, using Wittgenstein. Reality is ‘whatever is the case’, whether we understand it or not.
Both explain everything by explaining nothing. And Occam urges us to keep it simple. So I prefer Witters.
No, I mean the propensity of people – particularly educated people – to become seduced by abstract ideas to the point where they believe that those ideas are more real than the world of which they are supposed to be abstractions.
So an argument between a man and a woman is not as might be casually understood simply a pre menstrual woman wanting a bit more of her own way than the man she is currently with is prepared or even able to give her, but it becomes an example of the existential struggle of the politically oppressed female to liberate herself from the classical chauvinism of a white male dominated patriarchal capitalist state, a struggle in which one has not just the right, but the solemn duty, to intervene!
It just depends on your world view. The Marxist world view sees everything as human conflict. Once you buy into that, because perhaps you feel life is against you, then you are liberated, angry and ready to take up arms against those who you have been happily told are oppressing you. What bliss! You no longer have to reflect on your own inadequacies, or get smart! Nope. None of it is your fault and there is nothing you need to change in yourself. It is all someone else’s fault and you should agitate for government to use someone else’s money to make you personally feel better and richer!
Headology indeed!
Marxist thought reflects a man who was rejected and hated by his society. A clever way to wreak revenge on it, later developed into a Cold War tool to destabilise and demoralise the West. And now taken up, for profit, by global financial and political interests….
Once you accept the ‘fact’ of life being conflict and oppression, and not co operation and consensus, you are hooked. Never mind the winning or the losing of the argument, the evil black magicians have achieved their purpose by getting you to think in those terms at all.
Armed with this let’s look at climate change, the headology. Why are we even thinking in terms of ‘human induced climate change’ at all?
Because we have been and are being forced to consider if it is a major salient ‘fact’ or not, Or rather we are being told that it is.
Once we accept the ‘fact’ of it the what remains are arguments about what to do about it. But is it a ‘fact’ at all?
Again its down to the headology that confuses quite intelligent people. It is the subtle bait and switch.
“Do you accept that human activity affects climate ?”
“Of course – even a butterfly’s wings flapping in a Brazilian jungle”….
…”Okay so you accept that Anthropogenic climate change is real, serious, and something we need to do something about…”
“No I never said”.,..”yes you did! You accepted that humans cause climate change. Ladies and gentlemen, 97% of scientists agree that humans cause climate change…what are we waiting for? ”
“But I never said how much…”
“Ladies and gentlemen here is a man who is trying to confuse you Arts graduates and Language, History and Classics graduates, and students of Philosophy, Politics and Economics with hard nasty mathematics. You have managed your whole life not understanding Sums, don’t let him pull the wool over your eyes, It is a Scientific Fact that Man causes Climate Change, He has admitted it, . so what are we going to do about it?”…
Mankind operates on narratives. There are probably 1000 species of snake in Africa, and about a dozen are deadly poisonous. Homo sapiens learnt to operate on the basis that ‘all snakes are poisonous’ It isn’t true, but it’s aconcise, easily remembered, conservative and above all effective narrative.
The modern day Green/Left operates on the narrative that ‘all civilisation is a crime against Gaia’ which is excellent marketing and enables no end of eco taxes and Windy Mills, Silly Panels and greenwashed product to be sold to a public that wouldn’t otherwise touch it, but it is a little short sighted, because if we carry on then billions of humans will die. Taking their faux narratives with them.
Or perhaps that is the intention.
Too much to bother with realy, but interesting. However if a butterfly flaps it’s wings in the Amazon the movement of air is dampened to zero almost instantaneously- work it out.
Try to bother.
I am advancing a perspective that makes it easy to distinguish between different types of ‘facts’ and thereby not get conned into believing ‘facts’ that are at one level being used to generate ‘facts’ at a totally different one.
What is needed right now is a much better understanding of the philosophy of science and some metaphysics to help people clarify ‘what is real, and what is not’.
The game is one of creating a narrative. An emotional and moral narrative that purports to be based on ‘facts’.
But those ‘facts’ are not supported by the science. They are not facts but hypotheses, and, worse, they are hypotheses that are refuted by the science.
Even disregarding the lower two tiers of the knowledge hierarchy and starting with the (erroneous, but usefully) assumption that the phsyical world is the ultimate reality, we still have two levels. The level of real physical facts – observations and data – and the level of conjectures about those facts – underling laws that govern the relationship of one set of facts – like CO2 concentration – to another set of facts – like global temperature. This is the realm of scientific conjecture and it is wise to remember that no matter how solid the theory seems, science and indeed all knowledge remains no more than conjectures that have not yet been shown to be inaccurate or false.
If we are to recover science from the hands of the marketeers, it has to be on a basis of philosophical understanding. To claim ‘scientific truths’ is as bad as promoting scientific falsehoods.
The AGW narrative is flawed at every level.
It states that present day climate change is real unprecedented, caused by humanities activities, dangerous and will lead to serious issues for mankind if not addressed, and even if it turns out not so serious, we cant afford to take the risk.
Every single assertion is open to challenge.
1. Sterling work by Anthony and others challenges the assertion that the climate is warming at all in any significant way: issues with the data and how it is measured and interpolated over large areas that have no thermometers, issues with whether (Tmax-Tmin)/2 is an average temperature that is meaningful. Is the world actually warming much at all?
2. Even if the data is to be believed, is it unprecedented? Would we even see – e.g. a 1°C rise on 50 years in any proxy derived historical record? Or is it only that we can measure short term rapid rates of change only with thermometers?
3. Even if the change is real and unprecedented in our (very short) period of studying it, how can we be sure its down to human activity? CO2 at Mauna Loa marches steadily upwards, but temperature does not, It stutters from one year to the next, one decade to the next never showing a clear rising signature for very long.We know that CO2 alone via the science wont give scary temperature rises. It needs ‘positive feedback’ and yet volcanic events perturb climate via albedo change and fit the data well without the positive feedback being in play, which is strong evidence that there is no such positive feedback, and without that the case of alarming warming collapses. Cf Lord Monckton et al.
4. Even if the change is real unprecedented and down to human activity will it lead to serious effects? Ice caps take a long time to melt and act as a massive temperature stabiliser. There may be only a meter of two of Artic ice, but Greenland is kilometres deep. Its not vanishing any time soon. And would te world be a worse place with the higher latitudes open for farming? There is plenty of high latitude/altitude tundra that if it became warmer would be ideal for forestation. Coastal erosion due to Ocean currents and waves is a fact already and towns and ports that thrived 500 years ago no longer exist, and in the UK Doggerland, inhabited at the end of the ice age, is now under 30 feet of water. Humanity did not die as a result. It just moved. Humanity is not under threat, only perhaps a few cities.
5. We should do it even if it might not be serious, because it might be and we just don’t know. The most flawed piece of blatherskite is the ‘precautionary principle ‘. No one really knows what it means because what it seems to say is that in the absence of clear facts we should play safe. But, in the absence of clear facts what does playing safe consist of? Perhaps we are actually managing to stave off an ice age by burning fossil fuels and we should not stop that and play safe just in case? In the absence of real hard evidence no one can begin to guess at what playing safe looks like.
6. we afford to take the risk? Can we afford NOT to take the risk. Civilisation currently depends on a per capita energy burn that is simply unachievable without either massive nuclear investment or burning fossil fuel. All the concentrations is on electricity generation because there is no substitute for fuel for long haul transport. Why are we not building nuclear container ships? What is this very minor reduction n CO2 costing us, is it costing less than, say, moving new York uphill a bit Or putting it on stilts, or letting it become as Venice is. Less 5th Avenue and more fifth canal? Paul Rossiter shows the size of thee ‘green investment’ in an article adjacent. Has anyone done the cost benefit analysis of, say. just letting the earth get a bit warmer and dealing with the effects? They have, but you will not find their conclusions easily.
7. Is ther a moral case for stopping climate change, or it it in fact better to ‘save the planet’ from humanity by ensuring that climate change is as bad as may be, in order that lots of people die? This is the level of silliness the emotional debate is reaching with a member of the public declaring at an AOC sobfest that we must ‘eat our own babies’. What is the scientific justification for a moral stance on the planet and humanity? I can’t see any scientific justification for the planets continued existence or humanities. Just what exactly are we afraid of? Is in fact the attempt to be 100% renewable more dangerous than climate change could ever be, to humanity?
We are not supposed to ask these questions.
We should be, loud and clear.
most folks read past the Tractatus
Pity you didn’t.
What a gratuitous and petty ad hominem.
Jerk. Specially coming from someone who honks his horn about how well read he is.
Mosh flying so low his wings are splashing up the merde…
Well ”said” Leo – if not somewhat unnecessarily long. I agree. Basically, the meaning of the word ”fact” should be rigorously defended and not allowed to be diluted or twisted to suit an argument. Perhaps the book should better be named ”Climate Change – What We Know” ? The silly distortion of the word is the very reason we find ourselves in the divided situation we are in at the moment.
Here is a climate factor that Jennifer Marohasy constantly ignores.
Wilson, I.R.G. and Sidorenkov, N.S., 2019, A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate
III: Sub-Centennial Time Scales, The General Science Journal, 7927
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/7927
In summary, what Paper-III is saying, is that over the last 150 years, many of the main warming and cooling events in the Earth’s atmosphere (about the long-term linear trend) can be explained by forcings of the Perigean New/Full Tidal cycle because of their influence on El Niño/La Niña events.’
ABSTRACT
The best way to study the changes in the climate “forcings” that impact the Earth’s mean
atmospheric temperature is to look at the first difference of the time series of the world-mean
temperature, rather than the time series itself. Therefore, if the Perigean New/Full Moon cycles were
to act as a forcing upon the Earth’s atmospheric temperature, you would expect to see the natural
periodicities of this tidal forcing clearly imprinted upon the time rate of change of the world’s mean
temperature.
Using both the adopted mean orbital periods of the Moon, as well as calculated algorithms based
upon published ephemerides, this paper shows that the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycles exhibit
two dominant periodicities on decadal time scales.
The first is 10.1469 years, which is half of the 20.2937-year Perigean New/Full moon cycle. This
represents the time required for the resynchronization of the phases of the Moon with the epochs
when the perigee of the lunar orbit points directly towards or directly away from the Sun.
The second is 9.0554 years, which closely matches the 9.0713-year Lunar Tidal Cycle (LTC). This
is the harmonic mean of the prograde 8.8475-year Lunar Anomalistic Cycle (LAC) and half of the
retrograde 18.6134-year Lunar Nodal Cycle (LNC).
Hence, if the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycle were to act as a “forcing” on the world’s mean
temperatures, you would expect to see periodicities in the first difference of the world’s mean
temperature anomaly (WMTA) data that were a simple sinusoidal superposition of the two dominant
periods associated with the Equinox(/Solstice) spring tidal cycles (i.e. 9.1 and 10.1469 tropical
years).
This paper makes a comparison between two times series that describe these phenomena. The first
time series represents the lunar tidal forcing (LTF) curve. This curve is a superposition of a sine wave
of amplitude 1.0 unit and period 9.1 tropical years, with a sine wave of amplitude 2.0 units and a
period 10.1469 (= 9 FMC’s) tropical years, that is specifically aligned to match the phase of the
Perigean New/Full moon cycle. The second time series represents the difference curve for the
HadCRUT4 monthly (Land + Sea) world mean temperature anomaly (DSTA), from 1850 to 2017.
A comparison between the LTF and DSTA curves shows that that the timing of the peaks in the
LTF curve closely match those seen in the DSTA curve for two 45-year periods. The first going from
1865 to 1910 and the second from 1955 to 2000. During these two epochs, the aligned peaks of the
LTF and the DSTA curves are separated from adjacent peaks by roughly the 9.6 years, which is close
to the mean of 9.1 and 10.1469 years. In addition, the comparison shows that there is a 45-year
period separating the first two epochs (i.e. from 1910 to 1955), and a period after the year 2000,
where the close match between the timing of the peaks in LTF and DSTA curves breaks down, with the
DSTA peaks becoming separated from their neighboring peaks by approximately 20 years.
Hence, the variations in the rate of change of the smoothed HadCRUT4 temperature anomalies
closely follow a “forcing” curve that is formed by the simple sum of two sinusoids, one with a 9.1-
year period which matches that of the lunar tidal cycle, and the other with a period of 10.1469-years
that matches that of half the Perigean New/Full moon cycle. This is precisely what you would expect
if the natural periodicities associated with the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycles were driving the
observed variations in the world mean temperature (about the long-term linear trend) on decadal
time scales.
“ABSTRACT
The best way to study the changes in the climate “forcings” that impact the Earth’s mean
atmospheric temperature is to look at the first difference of the time series of the world-mean
temperature, rather than the time series itself. Therefore, if the Perigean New/Full Moon cycles were
to act as a forcing upon the Earth’s atmospheric temperature, you would expect to see the natural
periodicities of this tidal forcing clearly imprinted upon the time rate of change of the world’s mean
temperature.”
Yeah, what forcing? Fail right there!
Patrick,
If you are willing to spend the time reading the first three papers in the series, you might understand what I am talking about:
Ian Robert George Wilson and Nikolay S Sidorenkov, A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate I: Centennial Times Scales, J Earth Sci Clim Change 2018, 9:2
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-lunisolar-connection-to-weather-and-climate-i-centennial-times-scales-2157-7617-1000446.pdf
Wilson, I.R.G. and Sidorenkov, N.S., 2019, A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate II: Extreme Perigean New/Full Moons and El Niño Events, The General Science Journal, Jan 2019, 7637.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Climate%20Studies/Download/7637
Wilson, I.R.G. and Sidorenkov, N.S., 2019, A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate
III: Sub-Centennial Time Scales, The General Science Journal, 7927
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/7927
Confirmation of the results of the first of these three papers by another group is pending and I wouldn’t want you to have egg on your face when that happens.
Your welcome.
Explain forcing, yourself.
You’re welcome.
Ian,
There are some very simple editing processes that you can use in MS Word to remove unnecessary Manual line breaks (Coded as ^l).
1. Use Control A to highlight all of the text.
2. Use Control H to open the Find and Replace GUI.
3. Find ^l and Replace All with a space.
See https://www.howtogeek.com/89577/how-to-search-for-line-breaks-tabs-and-special-characters-in-ms-word/
ABSTRACT
The best way to study the changes in the climate “forcings” that impact the Earth’s mean atmospheric temperature is to look at the first difference of the time series of the world-mean temperature, rather than the time series itself. Therefore, if the Perigean New/Full Moon cycles were to act as a forcing upon the Earth’s atmospheric temperature, you would expect to see the natural periodicities of this tidal forcing clearly imprinted upon the time rate of change of the world’s mean temperature.
Using both the adopted mean orbital periods of the Moon, as well as calculated algorithms based upon published ephemerides, this paper shows that the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycles exhibit two dominant periodicities on decadal time scales. The first is 10.1469 years, which is half of the 20.2937-year Perigean New/Full moon cycle. This represents the time required for the resynchronization of the phases of the Moon with the epochs when the perigee of the lunar orbit points directly towards or directly away from the Sun. The second is 9.0554 years, which closely matches the 9.0713-year Lunar Tidal Cycle (LTC). This is the harmonic mean of the prograde 8.8475-year Lunar Anomalistic Cycle (LAC) and half of the retrograde 18.6134-year Lunar Nodal Cycle (LNC). Hence, if the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycle were to act as a “forcing” on the world’s mean temperatures, you would expect to see periodicities in the first difference of the world’s mean temperature anomaly (WMTA) data that were a simple sinusoidal superposition of the two dominant periods associated with the Equinox(/Solstice) spring tidal cycles (i.e. 9.1 and 10.1469 tropical years).
This paper makes a comparison between two times series that describe these phenomena. The first time series represents the lunar tidal forcing (LTF) curve. This curve is a superposition of a sine wave of amplitude 1.0 unit and period 9.1 tropical years, with a sine wave of amplitude 2.0 units and a period 10.1469 (= 9 FMC’s) tropical years, that is specifically aligned to match the phase of the Perigean New/Full moon cycle. The second time series represents the difference curve for the HadCRUT4 monthly (Land + Sea) world mean temperature anomaly (DSTA), from 1850 to 2017. A comparison between the LTF and DSTA curves shows that that the timing of the peaks in the LTF curve closely match those seen in the DSTA curve for two 45-year periods. The first going from 1865 to 1910 and the second from 1955 to 2000. During these two epochs, the aligned peaks of the LTF and the DSTA curves are separated from adjacent peaks by roughly the 9.6 years, which is close to the mean of 9.1 and 10.1469 years.
In addition, the comparison shows that there is a 45-year period separating the first two epochs (i.e. from 1910 to 1955), and a period after the year 2000, where the close match between the timing of the peaks in LTF and DSTA curves breaks down, with the DSTA peaks becoming separated from their neighboring peaks by approximately 20 years. Hence, the variations in the rate of change of the smoothed HadCRUT4 temperature anomalies closely follow a “forcing” curve that is formed by the simple sum of two sinusoids, one with a 9.1- year period which matches that of the lunar tidal cycle, and the other with a period of 10.1469-years that matches that of half the Perigean New/Full moon cycle. This is precisely what you would expect if the natural periodicities associated with the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycles were driving the observed variations in the world mean temperature (about the long-term linear trend) on decadal time scales.
Philip Mulholland, Thank you for correcting my egregious faux pas! I was cutting and pasting the text from the screen to Wordpad and it added line breaks to the text without my knowledge.
I greatly appreciate your kind advice. I will try to use it future when I am in a rush.
I can see a few facts as a layman…
99% of the climate model predictions are wrong – only the Russian model is close to the actual observations.
Sea level rise has not accelerated from 7-9 inches per century for over 100 years.
The Warm periods of the Roman times and the Medieval warm period existed before increased CO2 became a factor.
The Vikings did a lot of livestock raising and farming on Greenland way before today.
Most of the predictions of doom since the 70’s never came to true…
And a lot of other facts…
-JPP
Bindidon, October 6th. Regarding details, I thought
that those a lot younger than me could just click onto it.
It was John Maynard Keyes,. “When the facts change I
change my mind, what do you do Sir.”
In my younger days like when I was 23 he was a hero of
mine, in being able at that time to apparently explained
the facies about what caused “”The Great Depression”
of the 19390 tees, which then became a major factor in
the probable cause of WW2.
His ideas about the science of economics influenced
hundreds of economists from the Brinton Wood days.
But later on one of the dreaded “New Ideas” men came
along, and I think from then on Wall Street continued to
make a mess of the Worlds economy.
For the record I am a hard right Conservative, but I do
wish that economics were a lot more of a proper
“Science”.
MJE VK5ELL
Fact – Lord Maynard Keynes famous tome, General Theory, printed first in Hitler’s Germany with the following preface :
The theory of aggregate production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory.
The other London School of Economics prof. von Hayek is even worse, basing economics on a bee hive,
Mandevilles Grumbling Hive.
No kidding. No science there.
For that you need the science pf physical economy, monetarism being but a shadow.
“”Australia is a land of droughts”” True so lets build
Dams. We should not allow a drop of fresh water to
enter the sea.
So expect the usual scream from all of the wild river
types, such as those who successfully blocked the Gordon
below Franklin in Tasmania.
If those who long to gaze at a wild river, and have no
work worries as the rest of us have, I would suggest
that they go to countries such as Papua New Guinea.
MJE VK5ELL
There is an AU$25m project (Somewhere relatively “remote” I don’t recall where) suggested to do exactly that; Build a friggin dam! Of course, we here in Australia could have been doing this for a couple of hundred years, at least!
Bonbon, October 7th. Yes what Keyes said is correct,
just look at China. We in the West do not do things that
way, but there is no doubt that a dictator can get things
done.
MJE VK5ELL
Patrick,
Most equatorial Kelvin waves are generated by the interaction between the diurnal variations in the atmospheric mean-sea level pressure and the atmospheric and oceanic lunisolar tides.
https://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-lunar-tidal-mechanism-for-generating.html
When they are convectively de-coupled, these Kelvin waves travel from west to east along the Equator at ~ 15-20 m/sec. Sometimes, these Kevin waves become convectively-coupled off the East coast of equatorial Africa. where they develop into a slower-moving hybrid equatorial wave that has the characteristics of a (westerly moving) equatorial Rossby wave and (easterly moving) Kelvin. This new is called a Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO).
When the lunisolar geometry is right (about every 4.5 years), these MJOs develop significant westerly wind bursts (WWBs) in the far western Pacific ocean (above New Guinea) that weaken the equatorial trade winds (that normally blow from east to west). This leads to a sudden pulse of warm ocean water across the equatorial Pacific towards the east in the form of an oceanic Kelvin wave, trigging an El Nino event.
[Note that this is a very rough description of what really happens, so please don’t niggle over the minutia at this point].
Major El Nino events (along with their counterpart, the La Nina) play a crucial role in the overall warming and cooling of the Earth on decadal times scales. This takes places through:
a) a redistribution of thermal heat in the equatorial oceans to higher latitudes where it is lost to space.
b) changes in the wind pattern and speeds in the tropics and mid-latitude (e.g. the tropical jet-stream and mid-latitude Rossby Waves)
c) changes in the cloud patterns along the equator, in the tropics and in the mid-latitudes that alter the flow of energy into and out of the Earth’s climate system.
Obviously, it far more complex than the simple description given here but hopefully you get the picture.
Keeping it professional – you’re welcome!
Thanks for the post. Is this your definition of forcing, or just some mechanisms involved? I don’t see how this “forces” anything.
force (fôrs)
n.
1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion.
2.
a. Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail.
b. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.
3.
a. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
b. Moral strength.
c. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation.
d. One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.
4.
a. A body of persons or other resources organized or available for a certain purpose: a large labor force.
b. A person or group capable of influential action: a retired senator who is still a force in national politics.
5.
a. Military strength.
b. A unit of a nation’s military personnel, especially one deployed into combat: Our armed forces have at last engaged the enemy.
6. Physics
a. A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application. Newton’s second law of motion states that a free body accelerates in the direction of the applied force and that its acceleration is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to its mass.
b. See fundamental force.
7. Baseball A force play.
tr.v. forced, forc·ing, forc·es
1. To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
2.
a. To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession.
b. To move or effect against resistance or inertia: forced my foot into the shoe.
c. To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group.
3.
a. To put undue strain on: She forced her voice despite being hoarse.
b. To increase or accelerate (a pace, for example) to the maximum.
c. To produce with effort and against one’s will: force a laugh in spite of pain.
d. To use (language) with obvious lack of ease and naturalness.
4.
a. To move, open, or clear by force: forced our way through the crowd.
b. To break down or open by force: force a lock.
5. To rape.
6. To induce change in (a complex system) by changing one of its parameters: greenhouse gases that force the earth’s climate.
7. Botany To cause to grow or mature by artificially accelerating normal processes.
8. Baseball
a. To put (a runner) out on a force play.
b. To allow (a run) to be scored by walking a batter when the bases are loaded.
9. Games To cause an opponent to play (a particular card).
Using the word forcing suggests to me “something” (CO2) is making “something else” (Climate) do “something” that is not “usual” or “normal”. Which of course is complete nonsense.
Sophist: A sophist is someone who makes a couple of good points about an issue — until you realize those points are being used to mislead people.
This is what Patrick MJD is trying to do. He hopes that by fixating on the term “forcing”, he will be able to misdirect everyone away from the ideas that are being proposed. I will not be responding to any more of his posts.
I agree, Forcing is a bad term in science. It seems to be prelavent in ‘climate science’ I was trained in physics including geophysics and never heard of or used it prior to the advent of the new age ‘climate science’ Pre 1990 any climate science was in the realm of Atmospheric Physics of which I studied undergrad.
The thing about water is quite simple. It’s refractive index (N2) is about 1.27 for solar radiation and about 1.33 for LWIR. With the help of Fresnel equations you can calculate the specific emissivity (LWIR) and absorptivity (solar radiation) of water and the results are very nearby. With an absorptivity/emissivity relation of almost 1, water will naturally take on the temperature of a perfect black body (where this relation is 1 by definition), which is about 279K. The little delta here makes it actually more like 278K, but anyhow.
So with water being the dominant surface type on Earth, this is the temperature Earth would have if it was not for the atmosphere. The atmosphere effect (or “GHE”) is thus merely 10K.
But all that and much more is to be found here…
https://de.scribd.com/document/414175992/CO21
We are witnessing the life cycle of a massive international fraud .
Money to be made on the way up has peaked and now transition to make money on it as it deflates .
The models are incomplete . Who knew ?
Natural variables alter the earths temperature . Another astonishing fact with a 4 billion year history .
Instead of working on and solving environmental problems $trillions were funneled to rent seekers and added taxes to prop up governments .
Humans are hard wired to forget the past and be used as cannon fodder .
Good in general especially about the ridiculous notion that the ice caps could be melted.
I dont agree with the notion of ANY greenhouse gas theory of CO2. It doesnt exist, there I will fall foul of some in science. Well sorry.
Therefore there cannot be ANY additional heat from CO2.