The Real Climate Crisis Is Not Global Warming, It Is Cooling, And It May Have Already Started

By Allan MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 2019

Introduction – Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – A Failed Hypothesis

The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (“CAGW”, aka “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “Climate Crisis”, “Climate Emergency”) scare is a failed hypothesis and the greatest scientific fraud in history. Global warming alarmism has been promoted by political extremists and believed in by their gullible acolytes for decades, even though there is no credible evidence that catastrophic global warming exists in reality, and ample evidence that the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified.

The failed CAGW hypothesis assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel combustion drives dangerous runaway global warming. The alleged evidence for this fraud is climate computer models that greatly over-predict current observed warming, typically by 300 to 500%. These climate models deliberately employ excessively high assumed values of climate sensitivity to CO2, and are designed to create false alarm.

Global warming has slowed since the mid-1990’s, so the climate alarmists alleged that increased atmospheric CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels will cause wilder, more chaotic weather. There is ample evidence that this allegation is also false. Weather has actually become less chaotic.

The Mann hockey stick (MBH98 etc.), the Climategate emails, historical temperature data revisions and the thuggish tactics of the climate extremists provide ample evidence of fraud.

Credible Evidence That CO2-Driven Global Warming/Climate Change Alarmism Is A False Crisis

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been much higher in geologic time, and runaway global warming has never occurred in the billions of years of Earth history. Global temperatures have been much warmer and also much colder over geologic time. Earth is now in a glacial period, when mile-thick ice sheets cover much of the planet for about 100,000 years, interrupted by interglacials that last about 10,000 years. Earth is now in a warm interglacial, but the last glaciation ended only about 10,000 years ago, so Earth is due for another glaciation.

Temperatures were much higher during the Medieval Warm Period circa 900-1300 AD, and then humanity experienced the Little Ice Age circa 1300-1850 which caused enormous suffering and the deaths of millions.

The USA has some of the best surface temperature data in the world. The hottest USA surface temperature records occurred in the 1930’s, before fossil fuel combustion accelerated circa 1940.

clip_image002

Fossil fuel combustion accelerated strongly at the start of World War II, and global temperatures COOLED significantly from 1940 to 1977. That one observation is sufficient to disprove the CAGW hypothesis – global temperatures do NOT rise catastrophically due to increasing atmospheric CO2.

Even if it is assumed that ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the following two studies calculated that the MAXIMUM climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is too low to cause dangerous global warming.

Christy and McNider (2017) analysed UAH Lower Troposphere data since 1979.

Lewis and Curry (2018) analysed HadCRUT4v5 Surface Temperature data since 1850.

That 1C/doubling is not an average, it is a MAXIMUM climate sensitivity, since some or most of the observed warming could be due to natural causes. Repeating, climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values 3-to-5-times higher than 1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of dangerous global warming.

It is highly probable, based on the evidence, that solar activity, not atmospheric CO2, is the primary driver of Earth’s temperature. In astrophysicist Willie Soon’s recent video, he shows the Sun-Climate relationship and provides his conclusions. There is strong correlation between the Daily High Temperatures and the Solar Total Irradiance (54:51 of the video):

… in the USA (55:02),

clip_image004

Canada (55:16),

clip_image006

and Mexico (55:20).

clip_image008

Solar Total Irradiance is now close to 1360 W/m2, similar to the lows of very cold periods circa 1700 and 1800. Atmospheric temperatures should be cooling in the near future – maybe they already are.

clip_image010

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/offset:-1360/scale:1 Note: Offset = -1360 means 0 = 1360.

We do know that the Sun is at the end Solar Cycle 24 (SC24), the weakest since the Dalton Minimum (circa 1800+), and SC25 is also expected to be weak. We also know that both the Dalton Minimum and the Maunder Minimum (~1650 to ~1700) were very cold periods that caused great human suffering.

clip_image012

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png

Global temperature is certainly NOT primarily driven by increasing atmospheric CO2, because CO2 changes LAG global temperature changes in time, both in the ice core proxy record and also in the modern data record. The Vostok ice core record shows a lag of CO2 after temperature of ~~800 years.

clip_image014

In January 2008, Allan MacRae made the following major observations in this paper.
Reference: “Carbon Dioxide Is Not The Primary Cause Of Global Warming”, January 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

a. The velocity of changes of atmospheric CO2 [dCO2/dt] varies ~contemporaneously with changes in global temperature.
b. Therefore the integral of dCO2/dt, changes in atmospheric CO2, lag changes in global atmospheric temperature by ~9 months.

The very close relationship of dCO2/dt (red) vs global temperature (blue) is clearly apparent. Major volcanoes (some VEI5 and most VEI6 events) disrupt the relationship.

clip_image016

Integrating the dCO2/dt data gives changes in CO2, which lag changes in temperature by ~9 months.

The above figures employ Mauna Loa (mlo) CO2 data. Similar results were observed using global CO2 data, as in MacRae 2008. The impact of major volcanoes is apparent.

The 12-month delta in CO2 is used to allow for the “seasonal sawtooth” in the Keeling Curve.

The ~9-month lag of atmospheric CO2 changes (red) after temperature changes (blue) is apparent.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1982.0/to:2003.5/mean:12/derivative/integral/detrend:30/scale:0.3/plot/uah6/from:1982.0/to:2003.5/mean:12/offset:0.14/plot/uah6/from:1982.0/to:2003.5/mean:12/offset:0.14

clip_image018

In January 2013, a similar observation was made by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim – that atmospheric CO2 changes lag global sea surface and air temperature changes by 9-12 months.
Reference: “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

a. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
b. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
c. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

“The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”, January 2013

clip_image020

Our Predictive Track Record Is Excellent; The IPCC and Acolytes Have Been Consistently Wrong.

The ability to predict is probably the best objective measure of scientific competence. The IPCC and its global warming alarmists have consistently failed – every one of their scary global warming/climate change predictions has failed to happen.

In 2002 co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton, Ottawa and Allan MacRae wrote:

“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

Both these above statements are demonstrably correct to date. Despite accelerating combustion of fossil fuels, especially since 1940, and increases in in atmospheric CO2 measured since 1958, the world has experienced only hugely beneficial increases in crop yields and mild, beneficial global warming.

Despite the decades-long campaign to eliminate them, fossil fuels have retained their 85% share of global primary energy, and the rest is mostly nuclear and hydro. Despite tens of trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies, green energy still comprises only 4% of global primary energy. Due to intermittency, grid-connected green energy schemes do not even significantly reduce CO2 emissions, since they require almost 100% spinning-reserve, typically fossil fueled, to fill-in when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine.

CO2 Concentration is Far Too Low; Earth Is Colder-Than-Optimum for Humanity and the Environment

The radical greens could not be more wrong. Contrary to green propaganda, atmospheric CO2 is far too low, and Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is not too high – it is far too low for optimal plant and crop growth, and far too low for the continued survival of terrestrial life on Earth. CO2 reduction and sequestration schemes are not just wrong; they are costly, destructive and imbecilic.

Cold weather kills about 20 times as many people as warm and hot weather. Excess Winter Deaths in the USA average about 100,000 per year – equivalent to two 9-11’s per week for 17 weeks EVERY YEAR.

Excess Winter Deaths are calculated as the difference between deaths in the four winter months (December to March in the Northern Hemisphere) less half the deaths in the eight non-winter months.

Excess Winter Deaths occur worldwide, even in warm countries like Thailand and Brazil. An approximate-low estimate of Excess Winter Deaths is 2 million souls per year worldwide.

More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in England and Wales during the winter of 2017-18 – an Excess Winter Death rate about THREE TIMES the per-capita average in the USA and Canada. Proportionally, that is about 35,000 more deaths in the UK than the average rates of the USA and Canada. Excessively high energy costs in the UK due to false global warming/anti-fracking hysteria are a major part of the cause of these Excess Winter Deaths – driven by global warming alarmists and their corrupted minions in governments and institutions.

Predictions of Imminent Global Cooling, Starting Anytime Soon

Allan MacRae also published on September 1, 2002, based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson, the prediction that global cooling, which happened from ~1940 to 1977, would recommence by 2020-2030:

“Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.

Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1977 and more warming after 1977. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1977 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.

Only since 1977 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming. If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.

For the past ~five years, MacRae has written that global cooling would start closer to 2020. This global cooling will start sporadically, at different locations in the world. Similar predictions of global cooling are included in the Appendix.

It is notable that planting of crops has occurred one month later-than-usual in North-central growing areas of North America in both 2018 and 2019. In 2019, there were many more record U.S. all-time daily low temperatures than record highs for the last 30 days, 365 days and year-to-date. These events may just be weather, not climate, or they could be the early indicators of global cooling.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture publishes a weekly crop report:

Crop Progress NASS Weekly, Mondays

https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/8336h188j

The October 21, 2019 report is here: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/8336h188j/qr46rf238/fx71b191j/prog4319.pdf

clip_image022

clip_image024

The North-central 2019 harvest was hit hard by wet, cold weather. Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo explains:

The growing season in North America has been especially challenging.

Crop Challenges 2019

· Greatly delayed or aborted planting

° 19 million acres did not get planted.

° Late cold, snow, rain and flooded fields.

· Shallow roots caused by excess rain

· Soil Compaction

· Mid to late summer dryness and heat to the South and East.

· North-central growing areas saw excessive rainfall AND not enough sun or Growing Degree Days

· Early snows in Northwest growing areas

· Half the corn and soybean crop was not mature enough to harvest until mid-October

· The soybeans and corn still in the field are delaying the planting of winter wheat

clip_image026

The cold weather that developed early in the year persisted through the summer into the fall in the North-central region, which helped move warmth into the Southeast. Heavy rains fell along the contrast zone between the extremes.

clip_image028

With the cold, the Growing Degree Days were well below normal in North-central growing areas, and above in the Southeast.

clip_image030

See the heavy rains in the central Corn Belt early in the growing season, shifting Northwest late.

clip_image032

Corn and soybeans progress on average trailed well behind the normal.

clip_image034

Corn maturity as of October 20th 2019 was most behind in the Dakotas Southeast to the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley. Note the much better conditions in the South.

clip_image036

Newman’s analysis of 1980 showed the ideal growing areas of the Corn Belt would shift North with warming and South with cooling by approximately 144 kilometers per 1°C. The current corn growing area is shaded.

clip_image037

Newman, J. E. (1980). Climate change impacts on the growing season of the
North American Corn Belt. Biometeorology, 7 (2), 128-142.

The 2019 soybean harvest also trailed the 5-year average by 18% though the leaf drop was just 3% behind average.

clip_image039

Even where the first freezing temperatures came on time, the delays meant losses of corn not reaching black layer maturity and soybeans that had not dropped their leaves.

clip_image041

Very early snows arrived with the early cold in the North-central region affecting corn, soybeans, spring wheat and small grains, there and in parts of the Canadian Prairies.

clip_image043

The yield estimate on October 10th marks the first season in 6 years below the trend line.

clip_image045

Production estimates are down slightly but are expected to decline further after the effects of the early cold and snows are considered.

clip_image047

The soybean yield also is below trend line for the first year in 6 years. Projected soybean production is down more than corn production.

clip_image049

clip_image051

More areas will see below freezing temperatures and even snow before November.

clip_image053

clip_image055

Summary and Conclusions

It is notable that crop planting has occurred one month later-than-usual in the North-central growing areas of North America in both 2018 and 2019. While warm summer weather saved the 2018 crop, in 2019 the Northern corn and soybean harvests were devastated by a cold summer and early cold weather. In 2019, there were many more record U.S. all-time daily low temperatures than record highs. These events may just be weather, not climate, or they could be the early indicators of global cooling.

Appendix – Other Predictions of Global Cooling, In Chronological Order Since 2003:

In 2003, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt wrote a paper predicting serious global cooling:

“Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.”

In 2005, Piers Corbyn predicted cooling by 2040.
On the 2nd February 2005, he gave this presentation to the Institute of Physics Energy Management Group. It contained the following statement:
“In the next 5 or 10 years warming is likely to be maintained as a transpolar shift occurs. This will be followed by the magnetic pole moving away from the geographic pole, a decrease in solar activity, a Southward shift in the Gulf Stream and considerable world cooling by 2040 AD.”
In 2006, NASA predicted that
“Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries”.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov and colleagues at the Russian Academy of Science stated in 2006:

“Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century…

On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth’s climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate’s global warming at the start of the 22nd century.”
Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.
He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today because “climate cooling is connected with changing temperatures, especially for Northern countries.

Nigel Weiss, University of Cambridge, stated in 2006:

“If you look back into the sun’s past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity. Periods of high solar activity do not last long, perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash. It’s a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon.”

Leif Svalgaard, Stanford University, stated in 2006:

“Sunspot numbers are well on the way down in the next decade. Sunspot numbers will be extremely small, and when the sun crashes, it crashes hard. The upcoming sunspot crash could cause the Earth to cool.”

In 2007, Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian wrote in “Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years”:
“… Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years. (4) The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales. Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
346 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 27, 2019 6:24 pm

“Global temperature is certainly NOT primarily driven by increasing atmospheric CO2, because CO2 changes LAG global temperature changes in time, both in the ice core proxy record and also in the modern data record”

The Humlum etal 2013 paper does claim that but the correlation they use is spurious. Pls see

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/04/correlation-analysis-co2-lags-temp/

Reply to  chaamjamal
October 27, 2019 7:01 pm

Chaamful nonsense!

See the figure just after this sentence:
“The very close relationship of dCO2/dt (red) vs global temperature (blue) is clearly apparent. Major volcanoes (some VEI5 and most VEI6 events) disrupt the relationship.
,,, Integrating the dCO2/dt data gives changes in CO2, which lag changes in temperature by ~9 months.”

This is certainly not spurious correlation.

Hugs
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 1:14 am

You guys really sometimes make me wonder.

There is some yearly variation in temperature (the SH is different from the NH and an oblique orbit, etc) and CO2 (more vegetation of the NH spring than the SH spring). They’ll have to correlate. This proves very little on anything, though.

Karl
Reply to  Hugs
October 29, 2019 12:29 pm

The correlation does not prove causation. In fact when dealing with a correlation between two variables, the correlation does not indicate which variable is dependent, and which is independent.

Michael Keal
Reply to  Hugs
October 29, 2019 4:10 pm

Would it be correct to say that LACK of correlation DISPROVES a hypothesis?

Bartemis
Reply to  Hugs
October 29, 2019 11:05 pm

Karl –

“In fact when dealing with a correlation between two variables, the correlation does not indicate which variable is dependent, and which is independent.”

It would be absurd to posit that the rate of change of CO2 is driving temperatures. If that were the case, CO2 could be pumped to arbitrarily high levels, and temperatures would fall back to the initial condition as soon as the pumping stopped, regardless of final concentration.

The rate of change relationship clearly establishes that it is the temperature driving CO2, and not the reverse.

Karl
Reply to  Hugs
October 30, 2019 1:05 pm

The “relationship” you speak of is a correlation, and nothing more. Correlation does not prove causation which you think is the case. CO2 in fact could be driving temperature as the AGW hypothesis states, with radiative physics the underlying explanation.

Karl
Reply to  Hugs
October 30, 2019 1:15 pm

You state: ” it is the temperature driving CO2″ which of course the chart does not show. Your claim might hold water if you said ” it is the temperature anomaly driving the rate of change of CO2.” But even that is not shown by the chart because it’s comparing a monthly anomaly with a time-averaged quantity. Apples and oranges.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Hugs
November 4, 2019 4:07 am

“Karl October 30, 2019 at 1:05 pm

The “relationship” you speak of is a correlation, and nothing more. Correlation does not prove causation which you think is the case. CO2 in fact could be driving temperature as the AGW hypothesis states, with radiative physics the underlying explanation.”
__________________________________

Karl jette des bougies fumigènes:

Karl throws smoke candles.

When CO2 LAGS temperatures it’s not done with “correlation” –

it’s about causation.

And because CO2 LAGS the causation can only be “temperatures”.

The bougies fumigènes won’t help Karl: 1st he’s to answere CAUSATION!

A C Osborn
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 1:42 am

I am not sure that TSI is the real correlation, ie not on it’s own.
There are too many other things going on like UV changes, Solar Wind and Cosmic Radiation that are all intertwined with TSI.
I think Solar Output would be more correct.

Reply to  A C Osborn
October 28, 2019 7:04 am

AC – can you provide a data source for “Solar Output” please?

Reply to  A C Osborn
October 29, 2019 6:05 am

Thank you AC – but the only measure I see in your reference is to TSI.

Greg
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 2:29 am

That is not “proof”, it is a visual demonstration, though I think the claim is basically sound.
There is a short term correlation of dCO2 and SST:

https://climategrog.wordpress.com/dco2-hadsst-ersst/

There is also an underlying , long term rise is sCO2 which may also be related to the long term rise in SST but with a different scaling. It remains to be demonstrated that these two arbitrary scalings are physically meaningful and provide a complete explanation of the dCO2 SST relationship.

None of this fiddling with graphs and arbitrary scaling is “proof” of anything.

Reply to  Greg
October 28, 2019 7:11 am

Greg wrote:
“None of this fiddling with graphs and arbitrary scaling is “proof” of anything.”

Semantic nonsense Greg. As you may know, we actually cannot “prove” a hypothesis, we can only falsify it (Popper), but the subject relationship “dCO2/dt vs temperature” is strong supporting evidence in favour of my hypo, and all the evidence to date refutes the alarmist CAGW hypo.

Karl
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 2:05 pm

That graph is not “proof.”
..
First, dCO2/dt removes the trend.
..
Second the relationship is NOT between dCO2/dt and temperature, it is between dCO2/dt and an anomaly

Bartemis
Reply to  Karl
October 29, 2019 11:15 pm

The trend in dCO2/dt and in temperature anomaly match when one scales the variation to match.

Karl
Reply to  Karl
October 30, 2019 1:17 pm

Tell all of us with inquiring minds how you “scale” a time series variable with a monthly value with another time series variable that is a sliding 12-month average?

Karl
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 2:20 pm

That graph does not show which variable is dependent and which one is independent.

Reply to  Karl
October 29, 2019 11:43 am

More nonsense from Karl, who wrote:
“That graph does not show which variable is dependent and which one is independent.

Temperature changes lead, CO2 change lag- the future cannot cause the past.

Karl
Reply to  Karl
October 29, 2019 12:27 pm

You posted: “CO2, which lag changes in temperature by ~9 months.”
..
All that means is that CO2 LEADS by 3 months on an annual basis.
..
Again, the chart does not show which variable is independent.

Loydo
Reply to  Karl
October 29, 2019 11:00 pm

“Cooling… It May Have Already Started”

There is a (Caps) sarc warning missing from this post.

Bartemis
Reply to  Karl
October 30, 2019 12:02 am

“All that means is that CO2 LEADS by 3 months on an annual basis.”

No. It is not symmetric year to year. If you lag it 9 months, you’ll get good correlation with high SNR frequency components. If you lead it by 3 months, not so good.

It’s not really a time lag, but a phase lag, and the phase lag is 90 degrees. That is why the CO2 rate of change matches the temperature anomaly. For a linear, minimum phase system, a constant lag from input to output of 90 deg implies the input is the derivative of the output.

The time lag of 9 months is simply the lag of observed frequency components. Apparently, Allan is focusing on strong components with a frequency of about 1/3 years^-1. That means a time lag of phase in radians/radial frequency = (pi/2)/(2*pi/3) = 3/4 years = 9 months. If you look at other frequency components, you will get different time lags, but the phase lag is always 90 deg.

Karl
Reply to  Karl
October 30, 2019 10:28 am

You are dead wrong Bartemis. There is an “annual” signal clearly visible here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2015

..
That is a sine wave superimposed on a rising trend. This is the reason why dCO2/dt obscures reality.

Karl
Reply to  Karl
October 30, 2019 11:09 am

What is even worse is the doing a 12-sample average in the chart. (mean:12)

Karl
Reply to  Karl
October 30, 2019 12:13 pm

So, any/all of your talk about “phase relationships” is invalid when aligning a monthly time series with another time series that has a 12-month running average, and all trend information removed.

Karl
Reply to  Karl
October 30, 2019 12:17 pm

Bartemis, when you compare apples to oranges, at least your are comparing two fruits. With Mr. Macrae’s chart he’s comparing apples to cinder blocks.

rk
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 29, 2019 12:28 am

Allan,
In discussing warming and temperature most people on both sides of the argument never mention pressure. Anyone with any knowledge of physics knows that pressure and temperature have a proportional relationship as shown with the gas laws. There is no such thing as average temperature anymore than any other sort of weather and just to look at pressure systems at this link earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-243.87,8.27,333
should convince anyone that it is wrong to consider any silly notion of average weather. With 55 years in aviation and a long airline career I know there is no average weather including temperature. Here is another little gem on the BOM in Australia joannenova.com.au/2019/10/the-australian-bureau-of-met-hides-50-years-of-very-hot-days/

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 10:11 am

95% OF THE ARTICLE IS EXCELLENT — better than most articles here … but I have a big issue with climate predictions, in general.

They are so often wrong — about 100% of the time — that they are a waste of time to write about, and to read.

We have over 100 years of adding man made CO2 to the atmosphere, decent near-global weather satellite temperature data since 1979, and rough temperature data from 1940 to 1979 (I don’t trust surface data before 1940).

My only complaint about the climate in Michigan, where I live, is: WHERE IS THE GLOBAL WARMING we’ve been promised ?

2019 has been our coldest year since I moved here in 1977, and I want to file a complaint with someone!

DO COOLING TRENDS MEAN ANYTHING ?
There was a mild cooling trend from 1940 to 1975 ( which may be “adjusted” away before the ink on this comment dries, by those smarmy government bureaucrats! ).

So, what did that 35-year slight cooling trend mean for the long term global average temperature trend ?

Apparently, not much — it was followed by a faster warming rate after 1940, than before 1940.
.
.
I’ve been reading climate science articles and studies, as a hobby, since 1997.

The most important thing I learned was that climate change physics is not thoroughly understood, so it is impossible to build a real climate model, or to make real climate predictions.

The so-called “models” are just the opinions of the people who programmed them, falsified over many decades, by the inaccurate predictions.

WITHOUT a thorough understanding of climate change physics, climate predictions are just guesses.

And they are meaningless even if the guess turns out to be right … because a correct prediction made without sufficient knowledge , is just a lucky guess.

By the way:
I favor more CO2 in the atmosphere, to ‘green’ our planet, if added from burning fossil fuels USING modern pollution controls.

The “coming climate crisis” is the biggest science fraud in history.

There could be a climate crisis in the future, such as a much colder climate after Holocene inter-glacial ends … but currently, no human has the knowledge and ability to predict the future climate.

No human even has the ability to predict whether the climate will be warmer, or cooler, in 100 years.

Uunfortuneately, that lack of climate change physics knowledge does not stop all the wild guess predictions, and climate change scaremongering.

So here we are, living in the best climate for humans and animals since the late 1600s, but it’s very difficult to enjoy our wonderful climate, because so many smarmy leftists are constantly bellowing about a “coming climate crisis”, that they do not have the ability to predict !

Weylan McAnally
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 29, 2019 2:54 pm

You and I are very similar. I too have been reading climate articles and studies for many years as a hobby. I have come to the same conclusion as you. Prediction is impossible with our current data sets and understanding of atmospheric physics.

Rich
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 30, 2019 2:25 pm

I could have written this myself..

Petit_Barde
Reply to  chaamjamal
October 28, 2019 1:46 am

The cross-correlation diagram that Prof Murry Salby exhibits in his presentation shows :
– a positive correlation between T and CO2 with a lag of some 10 months (right part of the diagram),
– conversely the left part of the diagram shows no correlation between CO2 and T (or a weak negative correlation with a lag of some 16 months).

https://youtu.be/2ROw_cDKwc0?t=561

Therefore, according to this data analysis, the “Atmospheric CO2 concentration increase causes global T increase in the lower troposphere” hypothesis is inconsistent with actual physical Earth’s data analysis and any theory trying to explain this assumption can’t be anything but wrong of incomplete.

Furthermore, if any assumption could be done based on this data analysis, is that CO2 seems to act – if anything – as a negative feedback with respect to global temperature variations.

Many actual scientists found comparable results (CO2 has a cooling effect on the atmosphere) decades ago. See for example :
– Manabe & Möller 1961 : On the radiative equilibrium and heat balance of the atmosphere. (See paragraph “Heat budget” and discussion of the results).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281961%29089%3C0503%3AOTREAH%3E2.0.CO%3B2
– Kondratyev – 1969 : radiation in the atmosphere.

Plass’, Goody, Möller, Manabe, etc. all agreed at the time that CO2 has a cooling effect except in the tropical tropopause aera, where some disagreed (Goody, Plass’, see the paper above) :
– we now know that this “hot spot”, that the IPCC claimed decades ago that it would be an evidence of the CO2 warming effect, actually, does not exists.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  chaamjamal
October 28, 2019 2:14 am

chaamjal et al.,

CO2 changes do lag temperature.
This has been known since 1990 when Kuo et al. published their seminal analysis; ref.
Kuo C, Lindberg C & Thomson DJ, “Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”, Nature, volume 343, pages709–714, 22 February 1990

Their paper can be obtained from https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0.
Its Abstract says,
“The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.”

Subsequently, several other studies have confirmed the work of Kuo et al, and determined that the length of the lag varies with distance from the equator.

Humlum et al, published a nonsense paper attempting to refute this body of observational evidence, but other than several refutations
( e.g. see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908 )
it has been generally ignored.

Richard

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 28, 2019 5:50 am

Everybody,

Aaaargh! I made a typo,. and thus wrote the opposite of what I intended.

Chaamjal had claimed that because Humlum et al. (2013) was wrong there was no evidence of the lag of CO2 changes behind Temperature Changes.

My reply explained there is a body of evidence accrued over decades in support of the finding of Kuo et al. (1990) that CO2 changes lag behind Temperature Changes. And I wrote,
“Humlum et al, published a nonsense paper attempting to refute this body of observational evidence, but other than several refutations
( e.g. see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908 )
it has been generally ignored.”

I intended to write,
“Humlum et al, published a nonsense paper attempting to support this body of observational evidence, but other than several refutations
( e.g. see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908 )
it has been generally ignored.

Sorry!

Richard

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 28, 2019 8:37 am

Richard S Courtney – October 28, 2019 at 2:14 am

chaamjal et al.,
CO2 changes do lag temperature.

I can agree with the above, ….. but not this, to wit:

Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.”

Especially when MacRae and D’Aleo claim it is a 9 month lag, to wit:

Excerpted comments: By Allan MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 2019

The ~9-month lag of atmospheric CO2 changes (red) after temperature changes (blue) is apparent.

The very close relationship of dCO2/dt (red) vs global temperature (blue) is clearly apparent. (ref: UAH LT Global Temperature Anomaly graph)

The 12-month delta in CO2 is used to allow for the “seasonal sawtooth” in the Keeling Curve.

The above is highly interesting because of the claims, to wit:

A. how can one claim a very close relationship between CO2 and global near-surface air temperatures when said temperatures are little more than guesstimates.

B. when the 12 month delta portrayed by the KC graph is nothing more than a plotted visual “seasonal sawtooth” representation of the temperature producing bi-yearly or 6 month cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm.

C. how is it possible for CO2 to lag temperature by 6 months, …… or by 9-months ….. when the KC graph proves that CO2 lags seasonal temperature changes by a couple or 3 weeks to a month or so.

And likewise whenever volcanic particulate causes near-surface temperature decreases within a couple or 3 weeks to a month or so after an eruption.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 29, 2019 12:30 am

Samuel C Cogar,

You comment on my report of the seminal work of Kuo et al. and reply,
“I can agree with the above, ….. but not this, to wit:
Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.””
Especially when MacRae and D’Aleo claim it is a 9 month lag, to wit:”

It seems that you missed my writing immediately after quoting the Abstract of Kuo et al. (1990),
“Subsequently, several other studies have confirmed the work of Kuo et al, and determined that the length of the lag varies with distance from the equator.”

Richard

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 29, 2019 5:05 am

@ Richard S Courtney

It seems that you missed my writing immediately after quoting the Abstract of Kuo et al. (1990),

Nope, don’t be talking silly, ……. I didn’t miss it. It was inconsequential to the 1st claim.

Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.”
verses:
, and determined that the length of the lag varies with distance from the equator.

Richard, but don’t get confused, …. I agree with said “lag from equator” because it CONFIRMS my claim that the ocean water temperature drives the atmospheric CO2 ppm increases/decreases. RAH RAH RAH

But Richard, iffen you are an avid believer of the CAGW junk science claim that the “green growing/dying biomass” of the NH drives the atmospheric CO2 ppm increases/decreases …… then you have a real serious problem with your stated “distance from the equator” claim.

Don’tja think?????

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 4, 2019 4:40 am

“Samuel C Cogar October 29, 2019 at 5:05 am

@ Richard S Courtney“
____________________________

Samuel C, all Richard said was

– 1st CO2 lags temperatures at the Equator

– 2nd temperature rise distant to Equator lags temperature rise at the Equator

which gives

– 3rd CO2 rise lags temperature distant to Equator lags CO2 rise at the Equator – lagging temperature rise at the Equator:

Everywhere: CO2 rise lags temperatures rising.

William Astley
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 28, 2019 11:17 am

Obviously you did not read or under stand Humlum et al’s paper.

It is very difficult, possibly impossible for cult of CAGW scientists to do real science.

The entire CAGW team have ignored the recent observation that C14 (C14 from the atomic bomb test) has made it way down to the deepest ocean with no delay, disproving the CAGW necessary Bern model of CO2 sources and sinks and resident times.

The carbon 14 is carried down to the deep ocean by particular organic carbon which absolutely disproves the CAGW so called Bern model of CO2 sources and sinks.

Odd also that there is a paper from 1990 that estimates 130% of the atmosphere pool can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler)

CAGW requires that humans cause the majority of the CO2 rise which required the cult of CAGW to create the non-physical so-called Bern model (named after a city) of CO2 sources and sinks which assumes that ocean circulation (with hundreds of years delay) is the only method of deep sequestration of CO2 in the ocean.

Based on a half dozen independent analytical techniques and different measurements, humans are responsible for less than 15% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.

Analysis of yearly changes in the CO2 shows that the majority of the rise in the atmospheric CO2 is caused the increase in temperature.

This is an interesting summary of the Monkey business concerning the creation of the Bern model and past cherry picking of CO2 data to create the CAGW paradigm.

Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.

https://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

The Bern model assumes that ocean circulation (with hundreds of years delay) is the only method for deep sequestration of CO2 in the ocean.

The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).

https://www.livescience.com/65466-bomb-carbon-deepest-ocean-trenches.html

Bomb C14 Found in Ocean Deepest Trenches

‘Bomb Carbon’ from Cold War Nuclear Tests Found in the Ocean’s Deepest Trenches

Bottom feeders
Organic matter in the amphipods’ guts held carbon-14, but the carbon-14 levels in the amphipods’ bodies were much higher. Over time, a diet rich in carbon-14 likely flooded the amphipods’ tissues with bomb carbon, the scientists concluded.

Ocean circulation alone would take centuries to carry bomb carbon to the deep sea. But thanks to the ocean food chain, bomb carbon arrived at the seafloor far sooner than expected, lead study author Ning Wang, a geochemist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangzhou, said in a statement.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  William Astley
October 29, 2019 12:35 am

William Astley,

I read it and I understood it.

I am willing to debate that paper with you but I refuse to engage in slanging match with you because it is not worth the bother.

Richard

William Astley
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 29, 2019 10:10 am

Richard,
You need more facts and an alternative hypothesis. The cult of CAGW are 100% incorrect about everything.

Cooling is going stop all this CAGW nonsense. I will start a thread when there is cooling.

Atmospheric CO2 levels in the last 20 years, correlate with planetary temperature changes and planetary temperature changes correlate with mid-ocean seismic activity which in turn correlates with mid-ocean heat release.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf

Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic [2,3]. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe (Table 1) [4,5].

It is fact that there has been a 300% increase in the frequency of earthquakes (no increase in the magnitude, just an increase in the number of earthquakes which correlates linearly with amount of energy that is required to cause the earthquakes and move the ocean plates) that occur at the edges of mid-ocean ridges, at near the ridge where ocean plates are pushed apart, all over the planet.

What is interesting is geology does not have an explanation as to what generates the force to move the tectonic plates, before the observation that the frequency of mid-ocean earth quakes increased by 300% average for 20 years.

The lack of a forcing mechanism explains why the theory of plate tectonics took so long to be accepted.

http://www.davidpratt.info/tecto.htm

Pop Piasa
October 27, 2019 6:43 pm

I am very thankful that my little niche in the american midwest has produced a good crop of corn despite the conditions, thanks to a replant in May.
The potential crops lost to flooding here at the junction of the Mississippi, Illinois and Missouri rivers are considerable, just as they are all the way up the Missouri.
I think there should be federalization of flood plains and the removal of levees protecting croplands, with fair prices paid to the owners and first dibs on leasing the land at a low price during low water. The breaching of levees protecting river towns would be greatly reduced.

Natalie Gordon
Reply to  Pop Piasa
October 28, 2019 7:13 am

In my corner of the world we had a late killing frost, followed by one of the driest coolest summers in a long time, followed by heavy rains and an early spring blizzard. We have had snow on the ground for two weeks now. Winter is firmly here. Overall it has been a bad year but nothing is record breaking. Every nasty event has happened before in the last six decades.

October 27, 2019 6:43 pm

“climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values 3-to-5-times higher than 1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of dangerous global warming”

The connection from fossil fuel emissions to co2 driven warming cannot be made without the use of spurious statistics. The issue is not what the value of the climate sensitivity is but whether the climate sensitivity is a relevant issue. Pls see

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcre/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/09/08/climate-change-theory-vs-data/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/09/25/a-test-for-ecs-climate-sensitivity-in-observational-data/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/21/boondoggle/

Tony
October 27, 2019 6:45 pm

Interesting article. I didn’t know the United States constituted the world, as this author seems to believe. Wonderful to have those Soybean numbers, and the author seems to have other agricultural skills; cherry picking.

Reply to  Tony
October 28, 2019 7:01 am

Tony wrote this nonsense:
“I didn’t know the United States constituted the world, as this author seems to believe.”

How about if you state what you believe, and I will state what I believe. That is much more rational.

I do not believe that the USA is the whole world, perhaps because I’ve seen the whole world, or most of it (6 of the 7 continents) and it is definitely bigger than the USA. 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tony
October 28, 2019 7:54 am

“I didn’t know the United States constituted the world”

Well, as regards the U.S. surface temperature chart, it *does* “constitute” the world, as all the unmodified regional surface temperature charts from around the world resemble the temperature profile of the U.S. surface temperature chart, i.e, the 1930’s was as warm or warmer than temperatures today.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 28, 2019 1:50 pm

That’s unusual. My post above was edited by someone (maybe). I’ve never had a post edited before in all the years I’ve been here. The edit left out another paragraph I had written and it left out the four links I provided to surface temperature charts from around the world.

Any explanation for that Mods? I assume it was some kind of mistake because there was nothing in the edited part that was offensive and I’ve posted four links at a time in the past without any problem. So, like I said: Unusual.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 28, 2019 2:25 pm

Nevermind Mods (others). I found the post I was referring to farther down the thread. It was not edited, I just happened to write very similar things in two posts and got them confused.

Sorry about that.

DocSiders
Reply to  Tony
October 28, 2019 9:10 am

Prior to about 1940, the US record was practically the world’s records…with over 80% of the whole world’s records. The entire continent of Antarctica had one thermometer until just before 1930. And even to this very day ARE NOT SUITABLE for the determination of Global Average Temperatures (properly cited automated modern stations would provide 24 hour integrated temperatures providing for a better assessment of temperatures all day compared to the current “High/Low” reporting).

Pop Piasa
Reply to  DocSiders
October 28, 2019 11:03 am

That’s why the surface record is so often referred to as “guesstemp”.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DocSiders
October 28, 2019 2:01 pm

“Prior to about 1940, the US record was practically the world’s records…with over 80% of the whole world’s records.”

That’s true. One thing that is not often mentioned about the records from other parts of the world during this time period is that although they are few and far between, they all resemble the U.S. surface temperature profile where the 1930’s shows to be as warm as today and dispels the myth that today is the hottest period in history. It was just as hot in the 1930’s, and we have charts to prove it..

And where did our Alarmist Climate Gurus get the data for their “Global Temperature Average”, why from these very records. They then took these records, bastardized them, and turned them into a global surface temperature average and a Hockey Stick chart that doesn’t resemble reality.

Here’s the real global surface temperature profile, the U.S. surface temperature chart. All the old, unmodified charts from around the world resemble this one. They do not resembel a “hotter and hotter” alarmist Hockey Stick chart.

US chart:

comment image

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tony
October 28, 2019 11:13 am

If a few trees rings can be a proxy for the world, how can an entire continent not be?
IOW…can anyone explain how an entire mid-latitude continent can have a different temperature trend from the planet it is sitting on, over a multidecade period spanning over 100 years?
A few years here and there is one thing, but when the entire record is looked at in unadjusted form, it is clear that the pattern of warming and cooling is highly correlated.
How could it be otherwise, being that the jet stream carries air masses around the planet in a matter of a week or two, and the primary cells (Hadley, Ferrell, Polar) likewise distribute heat around the planet on other time scales?
Pre-global-warming-alarmism-era graphs of global, hemispheric, and US temps closely match the patterns seen in most individual locations from all over the Earth.
And they are concordant with historical accounts of ice changes, patterns of heat waves, etc.
All that really varies are the exact years of the inflection points, and the magnitude of the variations, with polar locations tending to show larger trends, and equatorial locations showing smaller ones.
Continental interiors likewise tend to show exaggerated variations as compared to locations closer to the moderating effect of oceans and seas.
This concordance disappears in adjusted data sets.

October 27, 2019 6:46 pm

“The Real Climate Crisis Is Not Global Warming, It Is Cooling, And It May Have Already Started”

No evidence in UAH data that cooling has started.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/07/23/cooling/

Reply to  chaamjamal
October 27, 2019 8:18 pm

Emailed earlier today to my friend Madhav Khandekar:

Hi Madhav,

It is difficult to argue with UAH satellite data, which shows some warming, although in a step-down pattern, but as we said in our article:

“For the past ~five years, MacRae has written that global cooling would start closer to 2020. This global cooling will start sporadically, at different locations in the world.”

I think Earth is shedding heat now in this step-up/step-down pattern – I think we are in a transition zone now – we’ll see.

Best, Allan

Greg Goodman
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 2:38 am

So you admit the claim “it is cooling” is unsubstantiated at this point. But like other modellers you expect it is just about to happen. Excuse me of being equally skeptical of both claims.

These climate models deliberately employ excessively high assumed values of climate sensitivity to CO2, and are designed to create false alarm.

Once again, climate models to not employ “assumed values of climate sensitivity co CO2”. It is an emergent property. Please get back facts right, if you want your claims to be taken at all seriously.

What the do “assume” is faked parameters for other forcings such as the scaling of AOD to radiative forcing which ARE and input to the models. Around 2000 AD, Hansen’s group dropped basic physics and observational estimates of this scaling and instead tweaked it, and other parameters, with the declared object of “reconciling” model output with the climate record.

In effect this change means they are increasing the climate sensitivity to volcanic forcing. The means they will need to tweak other factors to produce a model more sensitive to an opposing or warming forcing. We know which that has to be.

So modellers are not “assuming” high sensitivity to CO2 , they are creating conditions where that will emerge from the model by rigging other parameters.

Ian W
Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 28, 2019 5:30 am

The repeated use of atmospheric temperatures (without any regard to enthalpy) as a guide to the heat content of the Earth’s climate systems which includes the oceans is one of the problems. Heat in the atmosphere is on its way out of the Earth system to space. Warm winds blowing over the ocean will cause more evaporative heat loss for the oceans than cold winds, so the Earth climate system will be cooled by a warm atmosphere not warmed, and that should include the albedo effect of increased cloud. This is the activity of the largest of Earth’s cooling systems, the hydrologic cycle.
As the top 6 meters or so of the oceans have a higher heat content than the entire atmosphere, more emphasis should be put on the ocean heat content, and not just ocean surface temperatures.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 28, 2019 5:35 am

Greg wrote: “So modellers are not “assuming” high sensitivity to CO2 , they are creating conditions where that will emerge from the model by rigging other parameters.”

Mere semantics Greg. The climate computer models are nonsense – they “employ” (is that better than “assume”?) values of climate sensitivity that are much higher than the MAXIMUM probable climate sensitivity, which is about 1C/doubling of CO2.

Repeating from the paper:
“The failed CAGW hypothesis assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel combustion drives dangerous runaway global warming. The alleged evidence for this fraud is climate computer models that greatly over-predict current observed warming, typically by 300 to 500%. These climate models deliberately employ excessively high assumed values of climate sensitivity to CO2, and are designed to create false alarm.”

Jim G
Reply to  chaamjamal
October 28, 2019 9:33 pm

So you are claiming that a signal trend of .03C is detectable?
Looks like noise to me.

Try not to confuse reported instrument resolution with accuracy.
This seems to be a common thread in current climate science.

From Dr. Roy Spencer
“Because of various radiometer-related and antenna-related factors, the absolute accuracy of the calibrated Earth-viewing temperatures are probably not much better than 1 deg. C. ”

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/

Reply to  Jim G
October 28, 2019 9:53 pm

Since I think I’m the only one who’s mentioned 0.03C, I guess you are referring to that. As I stated, it is a residual – ie noise or small undetected cycles.

Reply to  Jim G
October 28, 2019 9:58 pm

OK. Tracing indents, seems it was something chaamjamal linked to.

Jim G
Reply to  dai davies
October 28, 2019 10:16 pm

Correct.
chaamjamal linked to:
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/07/23/cooling/

And declared “No evidence in UAH data that cooling has started. ”

I looked at the charts, saw that the were anomalies over a 30 year period
and concluded that there was no evidence of anything.

Folks are trying to ferret out a .001 degree signal when the instrument is only accurate to 1 degree.

Walter Sobchak
October 27, 2019 7:00 pm

Game on. We need a really cold winter to shut up these urverdammnis politicans.

steve case
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 27, 2019 8:46 pm

We need a really cold winter to shut up these urverdammnis politicans.

A as in One cold winter? It’s going to take way more than that.

cerescokid
Reply to  steve case
October 28, 2019 3:08 am

You got it. If the MSM doesn’t even report colder temperatures, such as —4F at West Yellowstone this morning, or any number of indicators of a cooling climate, why would we believe anything will change. The stand up and salute narrative of warming will be the default story for decades.

If it gets really bad, like a mile of glacial material burying Al Gore’s house, then maybe the public will catch on.

In the meantime, I’m not holding my breath.

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  cerescokid
October 28, 2019 7:08 am

The good news is that if cooling is coming, at least we will be able to see if you are holding your breath…

rbabcock
Reply to  cerescokid
October 28, 2019 7:30 am

Ask the people in Denver about an early winter this year. The best part is all those people in Boulder are freezing their butts off. Haven’t seen any outdoor Climate Change demonstrations there in the past couple of weeks.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  steve case
October 28, 2019 11:16 am

Agreed.
It will take a multiyear cooling trend that shows global temps falling below the long term averages on a sustained basis to change anyone’s mind, if then.
Short term changes are not the issue, and so will not resolve anything.

maarten
Reply to  steve case
October 28, 2019 5:55 pm

We had a really cold winter in the eastern part of US/Canada in 2015 – extremely cold and lasted forever. There may have been another one since but I remember that one as being out of the ordinary in both cold and duration of cold temps.

MSM and green blob still claimed that these kinds of winters are the results of global warming wreaking havoc on the planet. So, don’t hold your breath. They have lied for years about this hoax, so why stop now…

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 27, 2019 8:52 pm

Hi Walter.

In 2019 the Canadian prairies had the coldest February in 70 years. It was brutal.

We hardly had any summer in Calgary – I think there were a few days in August that felt a bit like summer.

Best, Allan

MarkG
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 27, 2019 10:03 pm

Here on the prairies, we almost had a frost in August, and did have one in September. I actually put the winter tires on the car in September, for the first time ever.

But, hey, it was the warmest year ever or something.

And the cold is due to Global Warming, according to the alarmists.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkG
October 28, 2019 8:00 am

“But, hey, it was the warmest year ever or something.”

Months. NASA Climate and NOAA are reduced to declaring months as “the hottest month evah!” since they haven’t been able to declare a “hottest year evah!” since 2016. “Global” temperatures are down about 0.4C since 2016 according to the UAH satellite chart..

Reply to  MarkG
October 28, 2019 10:38 pm

On August 18th, it was 26 degrees in Tok AK

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 27, 2019 9:30 pm

The hysteria is like seasonal influenza, it migrates to the S H.

Derg
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 28, 2019 2:45 am

In the twin city metro area of MN, the last 2 winters have been awful. Each producing a depressing whopper April snowstorm.

I don’t want a third 😡

Reply to  Derg
October 28, 2019 8:47 pm

Hate to break it to ya, but prepare for it, and a fourth, and a fifth – ad nauseum!!!

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Derg
November 4, 2019 5:12 am

Derg, don’t believe “tomwys October 28, 2019 at 8:47 pm
Hate to break it to ya, but prepare for it, and a fourth, and a fifth – ad nauseum!!!”s kidding you;

We’re already through with La Niña phase, gathering warmth during El Niños.

Nonetheless this one could get a hard winter too: due to atmospheric humidity, precipitation.

Michael Burns
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 28, 2019 9:06 am

It is -9 degrees C here in mid-Saskatchewan…I woke this morning at 7:00 am to an 18-inch snowdrift across my driveway. The wind chill has bitterly driven the temperature down. This all follows an ice rain about three days ago that froze on the roads — and then turned to snow. It has been snowing since then, needless to say, the roads are treacherous and I am sure this is the low point of a failed solar cycle.
It is going to get very cold.

Reply to  Michael Burns
October 28, 2019 12:09 pm

It is -10C in Calgary now, at 1pm.

I am already sick of winter.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 29, 2019 5:59 am

Minus 16C in Calgary this morning. I’m really really sick of winter.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 29, 2019 7:33 am

Just received this email:

Global warming causes early snow storms out west:
“Here in Saskatchewan, we didn’t even get the crop off before the steaming hot snow covered it.”

My comment:
I am convinced that the global warming extremists fully understand that they are deceiving the public for their own political and financial objectives – nobody could be this stupid for this long.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 28, 2019 9:40 am

Mr. Sobchak:

We in the US are living in an unusually cold year — from January 2019 through August 2019 was a record cold January through August (based on daily maximum temperatures from the USHCN weather station network, since 1895 — not every state set a record, but about 2/3 of the surface area of the 48 continuous states did).

Did anyone but me know this ?

Did anyone else care ?

Don’t jump to a conclusion that “a really cold winter” will make a difference, because the government bureaucrat scientists who predict a lot of global warming … also OWN the historical temperature data, and they are NOT afraid to “adjust” it … again and again !

It might feel like a cold winter on the land, but remember that the oceans cover 71% of our planet, and they can be made “warmer” by a bureaucrat’s “stroke of a pen”, just like they did in 2015, to “officially” end “the pause”.

This is politics, and junk science, not real science !

Richard M
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 28, 2019 3:35 pm

I think a really cold winter on the US east coast would be helpful. This is where all the media folks live. Having them deal with snow, sleet and ice for a couple of months would get their attention.

I would love to see an omega pattern set up over the US. That would make both coasts colder than average. Sorry to wish this on those of you who haven’t bought into the hype, but hopefully this would do a lot of damage to the propagandists.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Richard M
November 4, 2019 5:33 am
JohnTyler
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 29, 2019 4:08 pm

It’s amazing you say that.
REGARDLESS of what the weather is like in the next several years, it will be blamed on climate change caused by human activity and CO2 (regardless if CO2 levels increase, decrease or stay the same).
Too hot/cold, wet/dry, snowy/no snow. stormy/no storms, windy/no wind, hail/no hail…………….. it makes no difference.
It AGW religious zealots (i.e., left wing fanatics) will blame it on human caused climate change because the AGW movement is a POLITICAL movement.

October 27, 2019 7:00 pm

We’ve passed the peak of the modern warm period.

I’ve analysed the southern ocean surface temperatures (SST) using an algorithm optimised for extracting cyclic components longer than the data period. It was designed to decompose vocal tract resonances for my PhD in automated speech recognition (100-200ms speech segments between glottal excitations) and applied as-is to the SST data.

It extracted 800y, 200y, 60y, 30y, and 11y cycles in order of decreasing strength leaving a 0.03C mean residual. The SST can be viewed as a smoothed basal temperature of the Earth. The circa-800y cycle matches the thermohaline ocean currents.

http://brindabella.id.au/ftp/SST+C14.png

commieBob
Reply to  dai davies
October 27, 2019 8:13 pm

… cyclic components longer than the data period.

Suppose that you have a triangle wave. Your sampling window is only wide enough to contain less than half a cycle. The signal in the window is just a monotonously increasing time series. It doesn’t have any inflections.

What will your software do with that.

Reply to  commieBob
October 27, 2019 9:58 pm

Wouldn’t like it at all 🙂
In the domain it was built for the signal was constrained to a few resonances, coloured noise, or bursts which were handled separately. SST is more cleanly cyclic than speech so it worked.

Global Cooling
October 27, 2019 7:08 pm

The use of language that appeals to emotions does not belong to science. Please, do you not words like fraud. Let the evidence guide the reader.

Reply to  Global Cooling
October 27, 2019 8:55 pm

Read the Climategate emails, referenced in the report.

FRAUD.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Global Cooling
October 28, 2019 7:00 am

Hey , Global : tell that to the alarmists . It is all they have !

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Global Cooling
October 28, 2019 11:18 am

Fraud is what is occurring, so how can anyone be guided to the correct conclusion without mentioning it?

Reply to  Global Cooling
October 28, 2019 1:18 pm

OK. If you don’t like calling it a fraud, how about calling it what it is, which is a criminal conspiracy? The IPCC/UNFCCC, the political left and the MSM are all colluding towards perpetrating a financial crime against the developed world that makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief. While the IPCC/UNFCCC are fully conscious of this, I’m not sure that the political left and its lackey MSM understand the extent to which they are being manipulated towards the repressive agenda of the IPCC/UNFCCC.

Sugar coating the malfeasance only reinforces the alarmists who clearly have no qualms about using inflammatory rhetoric against skeptics. It’s important to counter their rhetoric on the same terms and not allow them the exclusive use of manipulating emotions to gain support for their position.

Sure, inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t belong in science, but that’s all the alarmists have and taking the high road on this isn’t working.

JimK
October 27, 2019 7:12 pm

Not only it is the greatest scientific fraud but is also the greatest economic fraud in history. The lost economic costs are incalculable. See Bastiat.

Reply to  JimK
October 27, 2019 9:09 pm

comment image

FRAUD

Rex Tasha
October 27, 2019 7:13 pm

😎 ✔ Moderator, please delete this comment.

markl
October 27, 2019 7:16 pm

+1 Well said.

commieBob
October 27, 2019 7:18 pm

We are getting full press climate alarmism. They have switched the limit down from 2°C to 1.5°C. They are desperate. They know, or at least strongly suspect, that the jig is up.

The solution to CO2 is nuclear power.

If Germany had spent those many billions on nuclear this past decade, instead of on solar and wind, it would have created enough low-carbon energy to replace all the fossil fuels and biomass used in its electricity sector and to replace all of the petroleum it uses for cars and light trucks, U.S. environmental expert Michael Shellenberger has said, citing a report from Environmental Progress. link

I was very happy to hear a Canadian Conservative Party insider touting nuclear on the radio today.

Rhoda R
Reply to  commieBob
October 27, 2019 11:00 pm

CO2 doesn’t need a solution. Especially if the climate begins cooling we’re going to need all the plant fertilizer we can get for crop growth.

HotScot
Reply to  commieBob
October 28, 2019 3:21 am

commieBob

….the jig is up

Precisely what I said when the lowered the limit to 1.5C. And haven’t they reduced that from the original number of 3C?

The best thing that can happen is that the world blasts through 1.5C and nothing happens. What do the idiots say then?

Tragically, however, sceptics are destined to wish for the very thing the world doesn’t want to make our point – global cooling.

How much money and resources have been wasted chasing the wraith of global warming, to the detriment of everyone’s children and grandchildren?

As realisation gradually dawns on the UK’s government at least, there will be a mad scramble for fracking, ignoring the wishes of the anti fracking brigade; there will be a knee jerk demand for nuclear, probably SMR’s which will be rushed online with risks not fully understood, and there will be accidents, because that’s what stupid governments do.

They did precisely the same thing with wind and solar, to everyone’s detriment. No cautious long term approach with a gradual winding down of fossil or nuclear facilities…….Just shut them all!

Even as a non scientist I recognise this as folly on a monumental level.

Perhaps the abandoned wind turbines littering our landscapes and oceans will serve as a reminder for generations to come.

Reply to  HotScot
October 28, 2019 2:17 pm

“Tragically, however, sceptics are destined to wish for the very thing the world doesn’t want to make our point – global cooling.”

It’s not so much a wish for global cooling, but an understanding that periodic cooling and warming is what the climate does and next in the progression is cooling. The alarmists don’t understand this, for if they did and to be consistent with their position that CO2 emissions are warming the world, they would want us to emit as much as possible before the next, inevitable, ice age arrives, not that it would actually have any tangible effect. Kilometer thick ice bearing down on NYC is a lot more inconvenient then the worst case warming claims by the IPCC. Where are the Canadians on this? How about the Swedes, Norwegians and the other countries that were completely buried during the last ice age? Talk about potential climate refugees.

DonM
Reply to  commieBob
October 28, 2019 10:38 am

If we do hit a very fast and (literally) deathly cooling trend. And we need to go full bore, extracting coal as fast as possible and using the COAL AS A TRANSITION FUEL until nuclear, through necessity, is fully developed and utilized throughout any northern hemisphere country that wants to stay viable. Then I would want some sort of prescriptive mine labor to include Al Gore and Mike Mann.

(In turn, if the temp increases five degrees Celsius I will offer my free labor to wave a fan for those guys on hot days.)

Patrick MJD
October 27, 2019 7:28 pm

A couple of Russian scientists back between 2005 to 2010, maybe a bit before, IIRC made a prediction of a cooling period similar to that of the 1970’s to start to make it’s presence felt around 2030-ish. I think they have it right as there does seem to be evidence in the past of a bit of a warm up just before a drop in to cold. Given we are still in an ice age, and we have been through well document cold spells in the past, this seems reasonable.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 27, 2019 9:50 pm

2006, yup, I recon they are right too lasting beyond mid-21st century.

Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2019 7:32 pm

Yabut, you’re forgetting that the heat is going into the oceans now, through an unknown, magical process. CarbonHeat™ just “decides” where to go, and when. But wait, there’s more. It also has an uncanny and spooky way of hiding from us, so right when we least expect it, BOO! There it is, in your face. Be afraid, be very, very afraid.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2019 7:58 pm

I thought CarbonHetaInTheoceans (CHITo) went AWOL?

Latitude
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 28, 2019 5:18 am

“heat is going into the oceans now,”…of all their stupid excuses….that one is on top

Max
Reply to  Latitude
October 28, 2019 12:53 pm

Looks to me like heat is coming out of the oceans right now. Not such a bad thing, really, if you want to keep the Earth, in general, warmer. If we’re lucky, things will stay warmer. Hooray for warmth!

However –

We know dick about what the climate is going to do as that’s the kind of thing that is measured in, multiple, human lifespans. Speculate all you want about what will happen, temp wise, in the next 5, 10, 20 or even 100 years. Go for it! Maybe it will cool off for a bit and then warm up and then get colder still after that.

Maybe.

Opinions vary.

What seems a certainty, no maybe about it, is that it WILL get cold and ice sheets will come to scrape away much of human civilization as we know it. Might be a few hundred or a few thousand years but the ice is coming eventually.

Oh, and the ones who are pushing the CAGW nonsense will give it up when they’re freezing and starving in the dark and sizing up their neighbors for a long pig BBQ.

Cheers

Max

Scissor
October 27, 2019 7:49 pm

TSI does not seem to be correlated with 40’s to 70’s cooling.

Reply to  Scissor
October 27, 2019 8:41 pm

RE your statement:
“TSI does not seem to be correlated with 40’s to 70’s cooling.”

See Willie Soon’s three charts in the paper.
“TSI does correlate with 1940’s to 1970’s cooling.”

Scissor
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 7:03 am

OK, I see that now. I was looking at the reconstruction: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png

October 27, 2019 8:06 pm

The seasonal response of biomass to temperature can explain most of the shorter term lags seen in the Moana Loa data since without burning fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are roughly proportional to the amount of planet wide plant life. Two things contribute to this. First is that to support a larger biomass. more atmospheric CO2 is required and second, when there is more biomass alive, there’s more biomass decaying back into CO2 and CH4.

Similarly, the birth and death of forests takes centuries and can explain the multi-century lags seen in the ice cores. Note that the 800 year Vostok lag is too large and is an artifact of low CO2 sampling resolution in that core. Newer cores, for example DomeC, exhibit a lag closer to 2-3 centuries which is more compatible with the ebb and flow of forests as melting ice frees up land for new forests, while advancing ice slowly kills them off.

Mike
October 27, 2019 8:08 pm

Yep I’m now in the ”cooling camp”
Maybe soon, maybe a couple of decades but co2 dogma is dying a slow agonizing death.
Actually, I would prefer it stay warm!

Reply to  Mike
October 28, 2019 8:19 am

Excellent 20-minute video from 2015 by Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss – thank you Mike.

The really good stuff starts at about 11 minutes.

https://youtu.be/l-E5y9piHNU

October 27, 2019 8:20 pm

Emailed earlier today to my friend Madhav Khandekar:

Hi Madhav,

It is difficult to argue with UAH satellite data, which shows some warming, although in a step-down pattern, but as we said in our article:

“For the past ~five years, MacRae has written that global cooling would start closer to 2020. This global cooling will start sporadically, at different locations in the world.”

I think Earth is shedding heat now in this step-up/step-down pattern – I think we are in a transition zone now – we’ll see.

Best, Allan

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 27, 2019 10:56 pm

Surely that’s a non-falsifiable statement.

Please give me some falsifiable predictions.

I am a global warming sceptic, but also a global cooling sceptic.

Reply to  Hans Erren
October 27, 2019 11:38 pm

Global cooling will start by 2020-2030, probably closer to 2020.

Loydo
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 10:31 pm

Free beer tomorrow.

DonM
Reply to  Loydo
October 29, 2019 9:51 am

The promise or intimation of free beer tomorrow doesn’t hurt me.

Taking my money & liberty today and telling me that in return I’ll get free beer sometime in the future is a pretty shitty thing to do. (And since they are planning on giving out only O’douls it is worse than shitty, it is a criminal lie)

Karl
Reply to  Loydo
October 29, 2019 6:26 pm

Loydo, Macrae has been making the same prediction “cooling will start soon” now for 20 years. He’s been wrong for 20 years.

Loydo
Reply to  Loydo
October 29, 2019 10:37 pm

Who doesn’t like free beer?

icisil
Reply to  Hans Erren
October 28, 2019 3:01 am

“Please give me some falsifiable predictions.”

That’s oxymoronic language. Predictions can only be falsified (or verified) at the temporal intersection of reality and prediction.

Jean Parisot
October 27, 2019 8:38 pm

Is there a global dataset of wet-bulb temperatures?

macusn
Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 29, 2019 8:44 am

Jean
You might do better with temps, pressure, and humidity or dew point and calculate. My local station does not have WBT

https://www.easycalculation.com/weather/dewpoint-wetbulb-calculator.php

David George
October 27, 2019 8:44 pm

The idea that we humans are somehow idealised for a cool world, based on the climate over the past 50,000 years (or something) needs to the called out for the nonsense it is.
If you want to understand the conditions we have evolved for look at our evolved physiology: no protective fur or blubber (land whales excepted) and one of the most effective cooling systems of any creature; our whole bodies are a cooling evaporation plate. We can run down antelopes in a hot climate our refrigeration system is that good.
There’s no doubt we evolved for a warm/hot climate with reasonable available water. The fact we survived the last glaciation is down to intelligence, inventiveness, adaptive behaviour and in-group cooperation. The Neanderthals, arguably better suited to the cold, failed to make it though some of their DNA may survive among the climate apocolysts.

David Steele
Reply to  David George
October 28, 2019 2:06 am

Humans are tropical animals. Without artificial aids (fire, clothing, buildings) they cannot survive a winter outside the tropics.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  David George
October 28, 2019 2:35 am

I read somewhere a couple of years ago that humans would die of hypothermia in most regions of the world without shelter, clothes and a source of heat. The excess winter deaths data for the UK and Europe confirms that. The deaths in winter predominantly affect people who would expect to live several more years whereas heatwave deaths affect people with underlying health issues.

Which makes a move to renewable and intermittent energy supplies a real threat to life and well being. Extinction Rebellion is well named, with extinction of the human race the goal.

HotScot
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 28, 2019 3:35 am

Ben Vorlich

According to the Office for National Statistics, Excess winter deaths in the UK during 2017/2018 were 50,100. The lowest on record was in 2013/14 at 17,310.

However, the terrifying prospect of people dying during heat waves is quite staggering:

“According to the NDMA (India’s National Disaster Management Authority) heat waves in India have accounted for over 22,000 deaths since 1992. In 2015, 2,040 Indians died in shocking heatwaves. Recent years have seen declines, to 1,111 in 2016 and 222 in 2017.”

Yes, that’s two hundred and twenty two!

That’s strange, we are told a warming planet (which, the IPCC assures us, will occur predominantly in the Northern & Southern hemispheres, in winter, and at night) is a bad planet. Yet in 2017 the UK suffered 50,000 fatalities from cold (nor was it a particularly cold winter) and India, a country with immense poverty, ill equipped to deal with weather extremes, suffers 222 deaths from heat.

In 27 years India’s total fatalities from heat is only ~5,000 more than the lowest recorded UK deaths from cold in a single year.

Based on 2005’s PPPs International Comparison Program, in 2011, the World Bank estimated that 23.6% of Indian population, or about 276 million people, lived below $1.25 per day on purchasing power parity.” (Wikipedia. I don’t like using it but sometimes it’s useful to get a feel for numbers).

Even were that 276 million figure halved between 2011 and 2019, the number of Indians living in poverty is still still more than twice the population of the entire UK, yet only 222 people died from heat.

You are of course welcome to verify these figures.

https://www.ons.gov.uk
https://ndma.gov.in/en/

Reply to  HotScot
October 28, 2019 5:55 am

Good post, thank you HotScot.

To clarify, the 50,100 Excess Winter Deaths that occurred in December 2017 through March 2018 was only for England and Wales – and did not include Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is about 35,000 more Excess Winter Deaths than the average per capita EWD rate for the USA or Canada, and it is a national tragedy and a national disgrace.

Excessively high energy costs in the UK are probably the primary cause of these EWD’s – remember this the next time you see demonstrators protesting the fracking of gassy shales, or protesting fossil fuels, or blocking traffic and blocking trains to “fight global warming”.

These anti-fossil fuel activists are by far the greatest killers in the UK, but since they kill off the elderly and the poor they get a free pass.

I’m with the good people of Canning Town.
https://youtu.be/9P1UXYS6Bmg

Best personal regards, Allan

HotScot
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 12:10 pm

Allan

Thanks for pointing out the missing Scotland and NI figures.

It really is a national disgrace, but the British government is so incompetent it can’t deal with the simple matter of a referendum and the resulting Brexit never mind care for the elderly and vulnerable.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HotScot
October 28, 2019 6:42 am

“HotScot October 28, 2019 at 3:35 am

However, the terrifying prospect of people dying during heat waves is quite staggering:

“According to the NDMA (India’s National Disaster Management Authority) heat waves in India have accounted for over 22,000 deaths since 1992. In 2015, 2,040 Indians died in shocking heatwaves. Recent years have seen declines, to 1,111 in 2016 and 222 in 2017.”

Many many more people dies in poverty. Many many more people die as a result of not wanting to live in that poverty and commit suicide.

HotScot
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 28, 2019 12:05 pm

Patrick MJD

There is statistical analysis for those dying of suicide, but not their reasons given for committing the act. So quite how you can claim that people are killing themselves because it’s too hot I really don’t understand.

I have my doubts if there is a category of ‘Died from poverty’ as poverty isn’t a fatal condition. The causes may be malnutrition or disease, but unlikely to be ‘poverty’. So, again, interested where you get these claims from.

Joel O'Bryan
October 27, 2019 9:08 pm

Waiting for Mosh-pup to make a one word drive-by….

Hello Mosh-pup… calling Mosh-pup.
Care to guess what the next 10-20 years of GMST looks like?
NOAA can mal-adjust GHCN only so much…

(cue: natural internal system variation takes over)

LdB
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 27, 2019 10:39 pm

I doubt it not worth the argument … prediction made let it live or die by it 🙂

October 27, 2019 9:15 pm

I’m signing off for the evening now.

PUULEASE read the paper and check the embedded references before commenting.

That will save all of us considerable time.

October 27, 2019 9:31 pm

Ja. Ja. Click on my name to read my report about thr droughts that are coming.

Reply to  henryp
October 27, 2019 10:12 pm

The left needs to implement Green New Deal policies quickly in order to take credit for global cooling, which is inevitable.

Global cooling is not the real problem. It is the leftist political reaction to it that will be the disaster.

Richie
Reply to  Angel
October 28, 2019 7:14 am

Exactly right. That must be why they have given the world a 12-year deadline for action to prevent a “meltdown.” The inner circle knows that after 12 years, it will be obvious (without a green deal as a smokescreen) that global warming is only the result of natural variability, and it is over for now.

Reply to  Richie
October 28, 2019 9:34 am

Leftist politicians and “scientists” have continually given 5, 10, and 12 year deadlines for climate Armageddon. When they pass with no result, they set another. This is identical to doomsday cults, who set another deadline for the world’s end when the last one passes, pretending the last prediction never existed.

noaaprogrammer
October 27, 2019 9:57 pm

Recent weather in Washington State is cooperating with sporadic global cooling by suddenly giving a cold winter in February, 2019; a cooler than normal summer with much fewer triple digit temperatures than in the past; and now a cold fall with snow at the end of September.

Stan Sexton
October 27, 2019 10:19 pm

“Climate Change” is a diversion from the most dangerous threat to mankind: Jihad.

Angela
Reply to  Stan Sexton
October 28, 2019 1:10 am

Yup, smoke and mirrors!

October 27, 2019 10:22 pm

“The very close relationship of dCO2/dt (red) vs global temperature (blue) is clearly apparent. “
Yup, still there is more CO2 going into the oceans than coming out of it.

Get your balance sheet right.

Reply to  Hans Erren
October 27, 2019 11:36 pm

Get your balance sheet right.

Silly comment.

I am NOT saying that Temperature is the only driver of increasing CO2. Others say that – Not me.

Reply to  Hans Erren
October 27, 2019 11:48 pm

From my June 2019 paper:

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and the conventional view is that this CO2 increase is human-made, caused by fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. While this is scientifically important, it is not necessary to debate this point in order to disprove global warming alarmism.

Scientists including Salby, Berry and Harde have hypothesized that the increase in atmospheric CO2 to more than 400 ppm is largely natural and not mostly human-made.

While my 2008 observations support this hypothesis, I have considered this question for ~11 years, and am still agnostic on the conclusion.

Regardless of the cause, the increase in CO2 is strongly beneficial to humanity and the environment.

Scissor
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 7:43 am

It could be largely natural. The annual cycles of CO2 are certainly natural, and larger in magnitude than human emissions and the overall trend. Someday we’ll know.

BFL
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 9:01 am

So if CO2 levels start dropping, will those numbers be fudged like the temp data??

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
November 4, 2019 7:14 am

“BFL October 28, 2019 at 9:01 am

So if CO2 levels start dropping, will those numbers be fudged like the temp data??”

Not necessary, BFL. Pas convaincant.

Maybe the next claim is woiperdinger devastated their data.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&biw=360&bih=518&sxsrf=ACYBGNQv9Cgl5Xt_Fj5SVCikveA_iPC1UQ%3A1572880200128&ei=SD_AXeO6B-iEwPAP0uWAkAE&q=wolpertinger+for+sale&oq=wolpertinger+for+sale&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.

Mike Dubrasich
October 27, 2019 10:28 pm

Dear Mr. George, regarding human evolution:

Hominids first appeared at the beginning of the Pleistocene ~2 mya — coincidently with the coolest global conditions in ~240 my and after ~50 my of global temperature decline since the Eocene optimum.

Yes, we arose in the tropics and are tropical animals, but the key factor in our evolution was the domestication of fire. We thrived as a species precisely because we could make fire — for cooking, warmth, light, protection from predators, ease in catching prey, and manipulation of the environment to enhance survival. Our bodies are adapted to artificial energy creation and use. Our intelligence and in-group cooperation revolve around the hearth. Making, feeding, and using fire made us human. We are fire creatures, the only fire creatures in the history of life.

The authors make the persuasive case that the Earth is cooling and perhaps sliding into another glacial stadial. The pressing question is: what can we as a species do, if anything, to prevent or delay global cooling? If the answer is nothing, then how might we adapt without undo suffering and precipitous human population decline?

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
October 28, 2019 5:06 am

Very good post – beautifully written, thank you Mike. “We are fire creatures, the only fire creatures in the history of life.” Beautiful!

Re “The authors make the persuasive case that the Earth is cooling and perhaps sliding into another glacial stadial.”

To clarify, I think moderate cooling is imminent, like the ~1940-1977 cooling period or even the Dalton (I pray not like the Maunder), but I have no opinion on the timing of the next major (continental) glaciation, because I have not studied it.

I really hope we are not there yet – but we should at least be thinking about what to do when the next continental glaciation starts – maybe albedo control of the ice sheet?

Best, Allan

David George
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
October 28, 2019 11:19 am

Thanks Mike, good point.
We should all remember to give credit to our ancestors for the fact we are alive; the fortunate product of billions of years of successful parents.

Loydo
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
October 28, 2019 10:58 pm

“The authors make the persuasive case that the Earth is cooling and perhaps sliding into another glacial stadial. ”

The Author: “we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030”

Mike, like the old promise of free beer tomorrow you’re persuaded by a blog opinion but not by decades of data from multple sources?
comment image?itok=RPG6MRlA
You must really want to be persuaded.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
November 4, 2019 12:04 pm
Jeff Labute
October 27, 2019 11:33 pm

There is a recent Chinese study based on sedimentary analysis claiming a 250 year period of cooling is ushering in.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3022136/china-scientists-warn-global-cooling-trick-natures-sleeve

October 27, 2019 11:41 pm

This is the second paper I’ve written with veteran meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo. Our first paper was published in 2015 on Excess Winter Mortality.
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf

Joe is one of the best meteorologists on the planet – this story illustrates how very competent he and the team at Weatherbell are, based on their strong predictive track record.

The U.S. National Weather Service (NWS) forecast a warm winter for 2014-15, and Joe called me in October 2014 to say he was concerned that the NWS forecast was seriously incorrect, and that the next winter would be particularly cold and snowy, especially in the populous Northeast. This was the second consecutive year that the NWS has made a very poor (excessively warm) Winter forecast.

Joe and I had been working together on a paper on Excess Winter Mortality, and we agreed that this incorrect “warm winter” NWS forecast was dangerous, especially if the country and its people were unprepared.

I proposed an approach, and we sent a presentation for my friend at the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). At the EIA’s request, Joe prepared his own monthly Winter Forecast by region for the EIA, who re-ran their winter energy demand calculations. Using Joe’s forecast, the EIA projected 11% more winter energy required for the USA than the “warm” NWS forecast had projected.

After that brutally cold and snowy winter, the actual energy used was 10% more than the EIA had projected using the warm NWS forecast, and just 1% less than Joe’s forecast projection. That is a huge amount of energy for the entire USA. I’m not sure if we saved any lives, but we definitely did a good deed.

Regards, Allan MacRae
Calgary

Karl
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 5:37 pm

Publishing a “paper” on blogs is not how science is done

Reply to  Karl
October 28, 2019 10:16 pm

Karl Marxist wrote: “Publishing a “paper” on blogs is not how science is done”.

It is now Karl. The leading journals, including Science and Nature, have disgraced themselves, publishing reams of false alarmist propaganda supported by PAL review.

Now we publish online, include all our data and live or die by true peer review.

And potshots from the weeds by trolls like you count for nothing.

Karl
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 29, 2019 12:35 pm

“It is now Karl”

No Mr. MacRae, you are incorrect. Have you noticed how much effort folks such as Viscount Monckton and Pat Frank exert getting their work published in journals?

ren
October 28, 2019 12:29 am

The inflow of Arctic air to the US visible in tropopause.
comment image

Derg
Reply to  ren
October 28, 2019 2:54 am

I thought Canada was warming 😉

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Derg
October 28, 2019 6:36 am

It is. -40f to -40c.

Matthew R Marler
October 28, 2019 12:35 am

Allan MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, thank you for this update on the cooling hypotheses.

Cooling, like the warming up til now, will likely be spatially heterogeneous, so more than “tales from the corn belt” will be required to convince anyone. That said, I do appreciate your work.

ren
October 28, 2019 1:58 am

The asymmetrical location of the winter startospheric polar vortex in the north means the inflow of Arctic air to North America.
comment image

ren
October 28, 2019 2:03 am

The cold eastern Pacific announces a severe winter in North America.
comment image

ResourceGuy
Reply to  ren
October 28, 2019 10:57 am

Yep

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
October 28, 2019 2:08 am

Allan
Thank you for an excellent posting.
Fraud is both the correct term to use for so much of the calculatedly deceitful nonsense broadcast by, for example the BBC, and the behaviour of scientists onboard the fund seeking academic gravy train.
It is important that in the future there is clear evidence that there were people who warned against the catastrophe the politico-alarmists are relentlessly and deliberately leading us into.
Keep up the good work.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
October 28, 2019 6:34 am

Thank you MC of East Anglia – I have tried to notify your government of their climate-and-energy folly – in an open letter to Baroness Verma in 2013 and a submission to the Stern Commission in 2005.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/19/renewable-energy-is-a-blackout-risk-warns-national-grid-after-chaos-during-biggest-outage-in-a-decade/#comment-2774481
{excerpt]

I predicted this debacle in 2013 and earlier, for example in an open letter to The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Baroness Verma, here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1130954
[excerpt]

I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.

As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.

Best regards to all, Allan MacRae

“Turning and tuning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer…” Yeats
[end of excerpt]

Regards, Allan

ren
October 28, 2019 2:17 am

A high IOD index may indicate severe frost in North Asia.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/iod1.png

David Tallboys
October 28, 2019 2:18 am

The value of this article is diminished by the ranting about fraud. Please publish it somewhere else in an edited form that can be linked to.

e.g – remove this:
“The Mann hockey stick (MBH98 etc.), the Climategate emails, historical temperature data revisions and the thuggish tactics of the climate extremists provide ample evidence of fraud.”

I think it is going to be a slow process to get enough scientists and teachers to move away from the Co2 theory. There’s been a generation or more had it drummed into them by TV, books, school lessons; and ironically by main stream media who love the drama of doom laden headlines. “World normal and likely to remain so” – does not sell papers.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  David Tallboys
October 28, 2019 3:46 am

A fraud is a fraud is a fraud…….period !

HotScot
Reply to  David Tallboys
October 28, 2019 3:51 am

David Tallboys

Whilst you are right about the effects AGW indoctrination has had on our communities, the spectre of fraud and double dealing hangs like the sword of Damocles over the scientific community.

The terms ‘fraud’ and ‘fake’ do indeed sell papers. All the MSM needs is a target and with the continuing replication crisis in science, it’s only a matter of time before the MSM turn on it for telling us all lies, not just in climate science.

We are all well aware that in some time in the future the world will decline into another ice age. Nothing humankind can do will stop that. It might just be a mini ice age as we had before (hopefully) but if a cooling signal is identified over the next ten years or so, then watch the MSM turn on the likes of Mann and Gore, and all the other hysterical ‘scientists’ will go to ground.

Reply to  HotScot
October 28, 2019 11:24 am

I’d count myself in the Pleistocene Ige Age is still here group. We are in an interstadial and it is only a matter of time before the cold state returns. We should, in my opinion, be doing everything we can, beyond our 4% carbon dioxide breath, to raise the atmosphere’s levels to closer to 500 or 600 ppm, not that it’ll ‘warm’ the planet. 300 ppm is too close to general plant starvation levels (and remember oxygen poisoning of RUBISCO is a thing), for my tastes.

HotScot
Reply to  cdquarles
October 28, 2019 11:57 am

cdquarles

A point I frequently make to alarmists.

TheFinalNail
October 28, 2019 2:48 am

Global warming has slowed since the mid-1990’s …

Not sure what evidence there is to support that. Even taking the satellite UAH_TLT data set, which has by far the slowest warming rate of all the global temperature data sets, warming between Dec 1978 (start of data set) and Dec1995 (mid-1990s) was +0.08 C per decade. From Jan 1996 to the present the warming in UAH is +0.11 C per decade, so faster since the mid 1990s, not slower as claimed. The rate for the whole UAH_TLT series, Dec 1978 – Sept 2019, is faster still, at +0.13 C per decade.

Taking the surface data sets and comparing the period since the mid 1990s with the same duration period up to the mid 1990s gives similar rates of warming; both up to and after the mid 1990s but also over the whole duration (all +0.16-0.18 C per decade, depending on which data set you use). These things are not difficult to check, e.g. (GISS here): http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1972/plot/gistemp/from:1972/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1972/to:1996/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/trend

So where is the evidence supporting the claim that warming has slowed since the mid 1990s?

William Astley
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 28, 2019 9:05 am

Hey. There is obvious a pause. Your link is the GISS which has been adjusted by the cult of CAGW.

This is what you wanted if you were interested in the truth.

comment image

The cult of CAGW were 100% incorrect. Their spin worked when there was a pause.

It will not when there is start of cooling. I would expect significant cooling in 6 months.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  William Astley
October 28, 2019 10:03 am

William Astley

Here’s that very same UAH_LT data you linked to, only this time with the trends in it as discussed above (Dec 1979 – Dec 1995; Jan 1996 – present). The authors of this article are claiming that “Global warming has slowed since the mid 1990’s…”

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:1996/trend/plot/uah6/from:1996/trend

The data set ‘you’ link to and proclaim to be “the truth” shows their claim to be false. The rate of warming in UAH_LT since the mid-1990’s is faster (+0.11 C/dec) than it was leading up to the mid-1990’s {+0.08 C/dec). Check the raw data on that site or at UAH if you don’t believe it.

The evidence you posted in order to dismiss my point actually backs it up.

William Astley
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 28, 2019 11:06 am

The data I linked to was UAH. The data you linked to was GISS.

GISS has been systematically modified reducing past temperatures and increasing current temperatures to create a hockey stick for propaganda reasons.

Compare the two graphs.

The majority of the rise in atmospheric CO2 was caused by warming, not the CO2 rise.

The tone of the discussion will change when there is real cooling.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  William Astley
October 29, 2019 1:05 am

I used the UAH data in my follow up post, not GISS. The same UAH data you used. Please see the link clearly showing that it is UAH data. UAH shows a faster rate of warming after the mid-1990’s than in the period leading up to it. The authors’ claim that global warming has slowed since the mid-1990’s is not supported by any data set and, in UAH at least, the opposite is true.

ren
October 28, 2019 3:06 am

It will be difficult to collect corn in the northern US.
comment image

Javier
October 28, 2019 3:38 am

The world is warming. That’s a fact that can’t be argued. Peak warming was reached in early 2016 as far as we can tell. The cooling of 2017 and 2018 has been partially reverted in 2019, but obviously it could continue in 2020 and following years.

But that already happened around 1945. The world cooled for 30 years until 1976. Was the world cooling long-term? Not really, it was in the low part of a 65 year oscillation whose trend was still increasing, so we can say that the world has been warming for at least 200 years including that period of cooling.

So even if we enter a 30-year period of cooling, that doesn’t mean that the planet is long-term cooling. We must wait at least a full period of 65 years to know if the long term trend is no longer upward. So by 2090 we might be able to say if the world has stopped warming. Of course that makes it personally irrelevant to nearly all of us.

Cooling alarmism has even less grounds than warming alarmism, and has been consistently wrong in its past predictions. That won’t change even if we enter a 30-year cooling period. Alarmists are not that different even if what alarms them is. Eventually there will be a reason to fear climate change but that may still lie several thousand years in the future. No point in worrying now.

ren
Reply to  Javier
October 28, 2019 3:48 am

Meanwhile, in Dakotas, the type of crop needs to be changed if the growing season shortens.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Javier
October 28, 2019 4:48 am

“The world is warming.” No, we can’t say that is a fact. All we can say is that we have been in a warming period since the LIA. That warming period may have already ended, but we won’t know for a while, perhaps even ten years or more. These things don’t stop on a dime, nor are they uniform. I don’t see anything alarmist in the post, simply the fact that cooling is more something to worry about than warming, if we need to worry about something. That isn’t being “alarmist”. And we can’t know how long a period of cooling, if it happens, will be. We can only hope it might be only 30 years. That would be easy. A walk in the park. Except, it would blow the whole CAGW carbonistas arguments out of the water.

Mark Hansford
October 28, 2019 4:15 am

I have been working outside in the Uk for the last 45 years with an 8year break in the 80s whilst I was in the Royal Navy. In the 70s it was very cold with temperatures so low (for the UK anyhow) that the diesel was freezing in the fuel lines and week long spells of -10C were regular. In the 90s/00s it was considerably warmer, particularly in summer with droughts and hosepipe bans a regular feature The last 10 years has seen progressively colder and wetter summers with this year having at least 2 July days where the temperature hovered around the 10C mark and I needed the heater on in the cab of the excavator. Winter temperatures are still holding up but are definitely not as warm as 10years ago.
Couple all this with the cyclical nature of the weather since WW2, one could definitely observe that the temperature topped out several years ago now. Perhaps as above this is all just weather but I notice that most of the RCP graph lines do not represent a cyclical nature, even if they are not completely straight lines.
Using my own experience and it is my own opinion, the weather is definitely on a more cooling trend already and the bumper crop yields of around the millennium are no longer being repeated. It will be an interesting next 5 years – by then I would expect to be able to see who is right here…..for sure.

Sara
October 28, 2019 4:23 am

Allan, I don’t see any references to increased humidity in cold weather. That is also relevant.

It used to be that winter air was dry, with bouts of snow brought in from elsewhere and if you walked across a rug and touched a metal doorknob, you’d get zapped by static. I haven’t had that happen to me since the winter of 2000-2001. I haven’t had to run a vaporizer to increase indoor humidity to a “comfort” level in nearly 20 years now. It isn’t just indoor humidity, it is also outdoor humidity levels that count. Never used to have “thundersnow”, and now it’s a fairly common occurrence.

I’m 8 miles south of the WI/IL state line. The weather forecast from NWS is for a snow and rain mix this week, several days in a row. (There goes Hallowe’en!) It may also mean a longer and wetter snow season in my area, and if it is going on here, it is also moving south into the metro Chicago area because of Lake Michigan’s higher levels. Lake Michigan has been consistently 11 inches higher than ever this year, and next year’s forecast for a rising lake level is another 20 inches. The local rivers have been higher than ever, and since they all head downstream to the Mississippi River, being up over their banks is adding a bodacious water volume to that waterway. These things need to be addressed. All the rivers around here are so full that some are over their banks. The local hiking trails and forest preserves are more wet than dry, and the trails are frequently mud if they aren’t paved for bikes.

We had so much rain this past summer that my little lawn looked like green velvet and not once did I have to water my plants on the front steps. We also had late snows, up to three inches deep. The last one was on April 30 this year. I have photos of it.

So why is this elevated humidity level not being addressed along with the other aspects of weather? Why the higher humidity? What’s going on there? I think that needs to be looked at, not just temperature swings.

ren
Reply to  Sara
October 28, 2019 6:22 am

Tomorrow morning expect a temperature below 0 C.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
October 28, 2019 5:42 pm

Not in the forecast for my AO, Ren, definitely not around here. Not even to the west of me.

steven mosher
October 28, 2019 4:28 am

The failed CAGW hypothesis assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel combustion drives dangerous runaway global warming. The alleged evidence for this fraud is climate computer models”

err.. nope.

psst. also, usa aint the globe

Patrick MJD
Reply to  steven mosher
October 28, 2019 6:38 am

But but but…what about The World Series?

Scissor
Reply to  steven mosher
October 28, 2019 6:57 am

Only the globe is the globe, but go back and review how basic science is done and review hypothesis testing.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  steven mosher
October 28, 2019 8:09 am

“usa aint the globe”. How convenient for Alarmists.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  steven mosher
October 28, 2019 10:24 am

steven wrote: “psst. also, usa aint the globe”

err.. nope.

Actually, the USA *is* the globe, when it comes to temperature profiles. All other unmodified surface temperature records, from around the world and from both hemispheres, resemble the USA surface temperature profile, which shows the 1930’s to have been just as warm as today.

Here are some temperature charts from around the world. Look at how similar their temperature profiles are. They look nothing like the Hockey Stick chart that erases the warmth of the 1930’s for political purposes, because if it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today then that means we are not experiencing unprecedented warmth today, as the alarmists claim, and that means that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere, not a threat. So the Data Manipulating conspirators had to get rid of that inconvenient truth.

Tmax charts

US chart:

comment image

China chart:

comment image

India chart:

comment image

Norway chart:

comment image

Australia chart:

comment image

Gator
Reply to  steven mosher
October 28, 2019 1:45 pm

err.. nope.

err… yup! Models all the way down… and failure all the way through.

Mosher clearly has no idea of what he is speaking, or is lying once again.

Graeme#4
Reply to  steven mosher
October 28, 2019 9:58 pm

Far, far away down south in the lower corner of Western Australia, we have now had three of the coolest summers in a row, with increased moist humid cool air from Antarctica replacing the usual hot air from the inland deserts. Also increased cloud cover in summer.

Alan D. McIntire
October 28, 2019 4:50 am

Toggweller et.al. has studies on glacial/interglacial changes, and on WHY CO2 lags temperature on long timescales. They figure that midlatitude westerlies control ocean circulation and CO2 feedback. When westerlies shift poleward, like the present, CO2 is flushed out of the ocean into the atmosphere. If that’s the case, increasing atmospheric CO2 could be mostly natural.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005PA001154

“…..We hypothesize that these transitions occur in nature through a positive feedback that involves the midlatitude westerly winds, the mean temperature of the atmosphere, and the overturning of southern deep water. Cold glacial climates seem to have equatorward shifted westerlies, which allow more respired CO2 to accumulate in the deep ocean. Warm climates like the present have poleward shifted westerlies that flush respired CO2 out of the deep ocean.”

Oulman
October 28, 2019 4:58 am

Minus 8C today in Oulu, Finland, some early snow already. Tyre changes were need 3 weeks ago – earlier than normal. We have had cool summer again and all the signs are it will be another cold winter. Green party is becoming more and more popular here and more stringent energy policies being introduced all the time (carbon taxes and so forth). Seems that most people are happy to pay for the “green revolution”.

Ack
October 28, 2019 5:02 am

Saturday it was 77, today (monday) thru most of this week in the low 30s. That is the only climate change i care about.

guido LaMoto
October 28, 2019 5:15 am

Thank you for an excellent, concise review of the science and its implications. This should be required reading at all the Ivy League institutes of higher indoctrination.

I’m glad I’m not a vegan homesteader here in central WI where my veggie garden was a miserable failure- worst in 50 yrs of doing this. Luckily, my nasty methane-producing cattle did just fine and I won’t be protein malnourished over this winter.

One word of caveat about GW and the northward movement of optimum growing temp/precip conditions– it will take the soil a little more time to undergo ecological succession to keep up with the weather changes.

Reply to  guido LaMoto
October 29, 2019 12:12 pm

Hi Guido – a better review of the science is here. This is not all mainstream yet – I’m either 11 years ahead of the pack or I’m wrong – but I hate being wrong so I generally avoid that.
Best, Allan 🙂

CO2, Global Warming, Climate And Energy
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx

October 28, 2019 5:37 am

How come El-Nino phases are completely left out?

It seems that the atmosphere warms ONLY when we are in El-Nino phase, cools when we are in neutral or La-Nina phase.

This gets overlooked over and over, why?

Right now the Ocean waters has been in a long term COOLING phase, that will eventually peter out……..

How come so many here forget Bob Tisdale’s presentations?

ren
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 28, 2019 6:09 am

It won’t be warmer in November.
comment image

Bindidon
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 28, 2019 12:44 pm

Sunsettommy

“Right now the Ocean waters has been in a long term COOLING phase, that will eventually peter out……..”

Wrong! Here is the current Ocean temperature situation since 1979, comparing the lower troposphere and the surface:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10FWtzbw-R8FUjI9SX5MoFahbLFIcIMg5/view

Maybe you confound, like do so many people, short term (since 2016) and long term (since 1880).

Editor
Reply to  Bindidon
October 29, 2019 11:16 am

Oh dear…,

your own chart supports my contention, when there is a dominant El-Nino phase, the ocean waters are in a cooling phase, the atmosphere will be in a warming phase.

October 28, 2019 5:44 am

Regarding “the following two studies calculated that the MAXIMUM climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C”:

I clicked the link for the Lewis and Curry 2018 study, and saw in its abstract:
“ECS of 1.50 K (5%–95% range: 1.05–2.45 K)”
“Using infilled, globally complete temperature data give slightly higher estimates: a median of 1.66 K for ECS (5%–95% range: 1.15–2.7 K)”
“Allowing for possible time-varying climate feedbacks increases the median ECS estimate to 1.76 K (5%–95% range: 1.2–3.1 K), using infilled temperature data.”

Ulric Lyons
October 28, 2019 6:02 am

Global temperatures change inversely to changes in the solar wind strength at interdecadal scales. The 1970’s global cooling was stronger solar wind conditions driving colder ocean phases, and driving an increase in low cloud cover. Post 1995 global warming has been dominated by weaker solar wind conditions driving warm ocean phases, and reduced low cloud cover.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons/

El Nino episodes drive major warm pulses to the AMO with an 8 month lag, that is a likely cause of the 9 month lag of CO2 with temperatures.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
October 28, 2019 10:09 am

Ulric Lyons

The 1970’s global cooling was stronger solar wind conditions driving colder ocean phases, and driving an increase in low cloud cover. Post 1995 global warming has been dominated by weaker solar wind conditions driving warm ocean phases, and reduced low cloud cover.

Yet the authors of the above article claim that “Global warming has slowed since the mid 1990’s …”. According to UAH_LT it’s got faster, and according to the surface data sets it’s stayed fairly constant over the long term.

October 28, 2019 6:19 am

Regarding “the following two studies calculated that the MAXIMUM climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C”:

I just clicked the link for Christy and McNider 2017, and found in it:

“tropospheric transient climate response (ΔTLT at the time CO2 doubles) is +1.10 ± 0.26 K”

This is transient climate response; equilibrium climate sensitivity is higher. Also, the 1.10 +/- .26 degree K per 2xCO2 was determined using warming in the UAH TLT dataset adjusted downward from .155 to .096 degree/decade because of volcanic effects in the earlier years of the tropospheric temperature dataset.

Mike Dubrasich
October 28, 2019 6:45 am

Correction: in this thread (above) I used the word “undo” when I meant “undue”, as in undue suffering due to global cooling.

Or more specifically, Northern Hemisphere cooling, which has been happening for ~6,000 years ever since the Holocene Climatic Optimum. The recent (post-LIA) warming has been slight relative to the longer trend, and it is ending. The worm is turning back towards cooling.

The good news is that there is not going to be a Hotpocalypse. The IPCC, AOC, Al Gore, and all the alarmist modellers are wrong about that. The bad news is that even slight cooling, which is apparently inevitable, is going to be disastrous.

Alarmism is not completely useless — if there is actually a disaster looming. Point of fact is that the Earth is already too cold and getting colder. Doing crazy stuff like carbon sequester, carbon taxation, atmospheric aerosols, banning fossil fuels, etc. is totally counter productive for what ails our Planet.

We are the fire creatures. We were put here by Darwin (metaphorically speaking) to warm the place up. We need to get after that. We need at least to be open to suggestions.

One idea, offered (above) by Allan MacRae, is albedo control of ice sheets. Not easy but possibly doable — however, will it work? Another is increase greenhouse gases. Careful here, though, because the most potent GHG is water vapor and clouds = albedo. Another is improve oceanic circulation, possibly by breaking off Antarctic ice shelves and towing them to Equatorial waters. Or mass dredging of the Bering Straight to get that heat exchanger working. Black roofs, not white ones.

Whatever the solution set, we need to concentrate on that and not on cooling the Earth. She’s already cold enough and getting colder. Warmer Is Better. Fight the Ice.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
November 4, 2019 1:10 pm

“Mike Dubrasich October 28, 2019 at 6:45 am
Correction

One idea, offered (above) by Allan MacRae, is albedo control of ice sheets. Not easy but possibly doable — however, will it work? Another is increase greenhouse gases. Careful here, though, because the most potent GHG is water vapor and clouds = albedo. Another is improve oceanic circulation.”

___________________________________________

OK, changing albedo of ice sheets, clouds are thermostats for the atmosphere …

https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+sheets+albedo+change&oq=ice+sheets+albedo+change&aqs=chrome.

In the end it’s null sum games,

incoming energy – work done on Planet Earth ( thermodynamics, fluid mechanisms … ) equals outgoing energy.

The big mover is the Sun.

ren
October 28, 2019 7:00 am

Excess ozone over eastern Siberia modifies the polar vortex pattern. This pattern has an effect on extremely low temperatures in the west of the US.
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/stratosphere

Alexander Vissers
October 28, 2019 7:17 am

Not much of a crisis,just cooling,and times have been cooler before. Please no cooling alarmism after a single below standard crop season.

Robert W. Turner
October 28, 2019 7:22 am

Well we have a forecast high of 33 F in Wichita on Oct 30th 2019. That is a mere 31 F below average. No big deal right? If it were 31 F above average and we had a forecast high of 95 F (beating record by 7 F) then the media would be reminding us that weather is not climate, right? If we were going to be 10-30 F average all week they wouldn’t be saying anything about a climate change driven heat wave right?

Global temps will fall like a rock once a strong La Nina actually forms – haven’t had one since 2011-12. I’m with Allen, I bet the next decade will have a cooling trend.

Mary Brown
October 28, 2019 8:20 am

“The alleged evidence for this fraud is climate computer models that greatly over-predict current observed warming, typically by 300 to 500%. ”

I have a serious problem with this claim. Hansen (1988-A) has a hot bias over 2 but the rest of the prominent model runs over the years have a bias somewhere in the 1.3 to 2.0 range (1.0 being unbiased). The models run hot and I suspect intentionally so, but I would urge the authors to stick more to the data, use less inflammatory and accusing language, and carefully support their claims. Otherwise, they just get chucked into the ‘denier’ trash bin.

James F. Evans
October 28, 2019 8:26 am

Two facts falsify AGW: 95% of all models have been wrong & there has been a 15 year pause in global warming.

mary Brown
Reply to  James F. Evans
October 28, 2019 12:30 pm

Neither falsifies AGW but both suggest that AGW is much smaller than advertised

Reply to  mary Brown
October 28, 2019 6:04 pm

Both fact, and many others, falsify CAGW.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 28, 2019 10:09 pm

Both facts, and many others, falsify CAGW.

Karl
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
October 30, 2019 10:09 am

Mary Brown spoke of AGW. You say CAGW is falsified. Apples and oranges. Tell us Mr. Macrae, where and when has AGW (what Mary spoke of) been falsified?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
November 4, 2019 1:26 pm

To Karl:

James F. Evans October 28, 2019 at 8:26 am

Two facts falsify AGW: 95% of all models have been wrong & there has been a 15 year pause in global warming.
_____________________________________

Both facts falsify AGW.

Both facts falsify CAGW.

Both facts falsify both AGW and CAGW.

D. W. Hryhor
October 28, 2019 9:32 am

Thanks for another superb article, and for your impressive work to expose these ridiculous global scale frauds.

btw – here’s another video of the Canning Town protesters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHOr2WH7V1k

Keep up the great work.

Steve Z
October 28, 2019 10:49 am

Last month the warmers were writing about an unusually warm September, which has turned into a cold “Snowtober”, which probably shortened the growing season even more after an unusually cold and wet spring. Carbon dioxide in the air doesn’t seem to have much effect on temperature, but it does speed up plant growth, which could be useful in short growing seasons.

Drill, baby, drill and frack, baby, frack!

Nylo
October 28, 2019 11:04 am

OMG, the only thing worse than a global warming alarmist is a global cooling alarmist… Amazing how can somebody criticize global warming alarmists because of real world data… and then go and predict cooling! Based on which real world data? Haven’t we just finished a weak solar cycle? Where is our temperature decline? My god… I would be laughing if it weren’t so sad.

MarkG
Reply to  Nylo
October 28, 2019 8:24 pm

“Where is our temperature decline?”

All over North America, for a start. We’ve been breaking ‘coldest temperature ever’ and ‘earliest/most snow ever’ records in many, many places in the last few weeks.

Yeah, maybe the weather will all suddenly return to ‘normal’ next year, but given the predictions that we’re heading into even lower solar activity in the next cycle, I doubt it.

Pop Piasa
October 28, 2019 11:09 am

@ Joe D’Aleo, (OT) could you maybe get Mr Shanahan, Mr Barak and Mr Taylor to consider a senior citizen discount for Weatherbell membership?

October 28, 2019 11:19 am

I just competed a study of all warm and cold periods over the past 800,000 years and discovered what must be the cause of the Ice Ages and other climate changes. I looked at oxygen isotope temperatures, deuterium temperatures, CET temperatures, sunspot numbers, total solar irradiance, production rates of beryllium-10 and radiocarbon, and cosmic ray intensity for every warm and cold period (for which data is available) in the past 800,000 years. The data is truly remarkable˗˗every cool period without exception was characterized by low sunspot numbers, indicating low strength of the sun’s magnetic field, and high production rates of beryllium˗10 and radiocarbon, indicating high intensity of cosmic rays. Every warm period was coincident with high sunspot numbers and low production rates of beryllium˗10 and radiocarbon. Thus, it is unequivocally clear that climate changes, large and small, are driven by fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic field. A book, “The solar magnetic cause of climate changes and origin of the ice ages” with full documentation is available on Amazon.

Reply to  don easterbrook
October 28, 2019 12:01 pm

Don
Thanks so much for that remark. It makes so much sense. And I know exactly what you mean. A lower strength of the solar magnetic field strength on the sun means that more of the most energetic particles are able to escape from the sun, There is a window TOA through which only that much energy is allowed. I call it God’s window.
I was just trying to explain to someone on the other end of the world how the GB cycle works.
https://www.climategate.nl/2019/10/84861/comment-page-2/#comment-2280961

I doubt if he will understand it. Click on my name to read the English version of my article.

Reply to  don easterbrook
October 28, 2019 2:14 pm

Thank you DonE. I agree with your conclusion. How about a paper on wattsup?

Reply to  don easterbrook
October 28, 2019 8:58 pm

Bingo, Don! You’re about to hit another Home Run, with Shaviv in the batting circle and Svensmark and Soon already on base.

Nicely done!!!

Burl Henry
Reply to  don easterbrook
October 31, 2019 10:03 am

Don Esterbrook:

Although you considered a large number of variables, you failed to consider the ACTUAL cause of our changing climate, which is simply the amount of dimming SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere , which are primarily of volcanic origin. There is no observable effect apart from changing levels of SO2 aerosols.

A case in point: Between 1310 and 1315, there were annual VEI5 volcanic eruptions which spewed dimming SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere, causing extreme cooling and causing the Great Famine of 1315-13i7.

Essentially every example of temperature increases or decreases can associated solely with changing SO2 aerosol levels.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Burl Henry
November 4, 2019 2:00 pm

Burl Henry October 31, 2019 at 10:03 am

[ ] the amount of dimming SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere , which are primarily of volcanic origin. There is no observable effect apart from changing levels of SO2 aerosols. [ ] volcanic eruptions which spewed dimming SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere, causing extreme cooling and causing the Great Famine of 1315-13i7.

Essentially every example of temperature increases or decreases can NOT BE associated SOLELY with changing SO2 aerosol LEVELS –

because NOx aerosols first are condensation nuklei for atmospheric humidity starting falling rain.

Shakespeare Years aren’t irrésistiblement associated with “famine” years:

https://www.google.com/search?q=shakespeare+and+the+rain+it+raineth+every+day&oq=Shakespeare+and+the+rain+&aqs=chrome.

Irrésistiblement associated with “famine” years are hungerstones:

https://www.google.com/search?q=hunger+stones+europe&oq=hungerstonez&aqs=chrome.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
November 10, 2019 7:41 am

Johan Wundersamer:

You state that “NOx aerosols are first condensation nuklei for atmospheric humidity starting falling rain”

For this to be true, there would have to be average anomalous global temperature changes associated with changing levels of NOx aerosols, and there is no evidence of any such changes apart from those caused by changing levels of SO2 aerosols

Thank you for your reference to the Hunger Stones!

October 28, 2019 11:46 am

We are having a second snowfall this year in Colorado at New Mexico border, and it’s way too early. Today at noon the temperature is still below freezing point.

I think that observations and predictions in this article are overwhelmingly correct.

Bindidon
October 28, 2019 1:09 pm

A. Mac Rae & J. D’Aleo

“The hottest USA surface temperature records occurred in the 1930’s…”

Correct.

A far better presentation of that fact, without any restriction to stations’ life time, was made by John Christy as well, and published e.g. on Roy Spencer’s blog:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017.jpg

The same can be shown using 18000 CONUS GHCN daily stations instead of those few of the USHCN data set:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view

But then, when you extend your focus from the little US corner (no more than 6 % of the land masses) to the Globe as a whole (nearly 40000 GHCN daily stations), you obtain this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view

You see that the 1930’s are a pure CONUS story.

Btw, please stop telling us that US weather stations are worldwide the only accurate ones, that is simple manipulation.

Rgds
J.-P. D.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bindidon
October 28, 2019 2:39 pm

“You see that the 1930’s are a pure CONUS story.”

See the charts I posted above, Bindidon. They show the 1930’s warmth was not restricted to the CONtinental United States. The 1930’s were as warm as today all over the globe. Or at least, the places that recorded the temperatures, and agreed, there were not a large number of recording stations but the records we do have, resemble the US surface temperature chart.

Bindidon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 29, 2019 9:28 am

Tom Abbott

Typical reaction of a ‘skeptic’ who sees a global view and refutes it with the help of a few examples.

And even more typical is for ‘skeptic’s to
– always refute data not fitting to their egocentric narrative because of a “number of recording stations” being not large enough,
but
– silently agree with the same, arbitrarily sparse data when it suddenly confirms what they guess.

Finally, it is one more time typical for ‘skeptic’s to ignore the fact that the warming does not come from increasing maxima, but from increasing minima all over the world, CONUS INCLUDED.

Gator
Reply to  Bindidon
October 29, 2019 10:02 am

– always refute data not fitting to their egocentric narrative…

You mean like altering historic data?

the fact that the warming does not come from increasing maxima, but from increasing minima…

AKA UHI.

So just what is the UHI adjustment that alarmists use to compensate for growing infrastructure?

Bindidon
Reply to  Gator
October 29, 2019 11:22 am

Gator

Why should I reply to a polemist lacking even smallest knowledge concerning what he writes about? Many of the comments you publish here are somewhat ‘below the belt’.

Instead of keeping polemic, try (1) to (really) digest this:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

and (2) to look at this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zg9M-GZwNoIBln404Ay0voAL8V4PmSdK/view

This is a comparison of
– all available USCRN station records (a bit over 200)
with
– all GHCN daily records available for CONUS (over 8000).

As you know, USCRN is the ‘pristine’ station set acknowledged by surfacestations.org; these stations are know to have far less UHI influence than all others.

Why then are the running means over the two sets so similar?
I’m sure you will invent something ‘accurate’ to explain 🙂

Gator
Reply to  Bindidon
October 29, 2019 11:47 am

Alarmists are the inventors, inventing new temp records, inventing feedbacks, inventing doomer fantasies.

I have no need to invent. The study has been done.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

It found that roughly 80% of the stations studied had a warm bias of 1-5+ centigrade. So if data sets match, they are simply reflecting the same issue.

What is the UHI adjustment?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Gator
October 31, 2019 11:53 am

Where I live, relative humidity decides the diurnal temperature range, low and high. Proof that water is in control as the only relevant greenhouse gas. I see higher humidity in ocean generated air masses, due to warm SSTs in key geographical areas. Can you link CO2 to SSTs and rule out all other components?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Gator
November 4, 2019 3:32 pm

“Bindidon October 29, 2019 at 11:22 am

Why should I reply to a polemist lacking even smallest knowledge concerning what he writes about? Many of the comments you publish here are somewhat ‘below the belt’.”

_________________________

Astounding, settled science & preparing death rows:

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNTUpOeHxCa8FP_CQ0VedGF6u6xo6Q%3A1572909795446&ei=47LAXefpGsWlmwWTkZvYCw&q=university+graz+professor+death+penalty+climate+deniers&oq=university+graz+professor+death+penalty+climate+deniers&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 4, 2019 2:19 pm

Bindidon October 29, 2019 at 9:28 am
[]

“typical reaction of a ‘skeptic’” –

reminds on a howlin wolf: not the baddest.

https://www.google.com/search?q=howlin+wolf+song+list&oq=Howling+Wolf+song+list+&aqs=chrome.

Glenn R Morton
October 28, 2019 1:21 pm

I owned a ranch in east Texas with grapes from 2008 until 2016. Grapes mature based upon temperature and sunlight. When I bought the place, my grapes matured at the end of May. Each year the grapes came later and later until by 2016 they matured in August. I think my grapes were saying it was getting cooler.

Gunga Din
October 28, 2019 1:28 pm

I have a question about the daily record high occurrences. (comment image?resize=438%2C240&ssl=1 )

I’ve noticed for my little spot on the globe, when going to the NWS the year listed for a record high is now the latest year it occurred. That is, ties are no longer listed as they once were.
(Side note: I think the first occurrence should be the year listed. That’s when it was “set”.)

The question: Does the daily record high occurrences include all the ties? Or is it the year “set” or the latest year it occurred?
(Or maybe this a question for Dr. Christy?)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 29, 2019 2:59 pm

To clarify.
Back in 2007 and Al’s “Inconvenient Fluff” stuff, to satisfy my own curiosity, I copied my little spot on the globe’s record temps into Excel. (Ties were not included in that list.)
Most of the record highs were before 1950 and most of the record lows were after 1950. (That confirmed for me personally what I suspected about “Honest Al” and what he produced.)
(This was before I found WUWT.)
I copied later lists and found ties were now included in them.
I’m just wondering if “occurences” includes ties. If so, how they are handled.

Greg Goodknight
October 28, 2019 2:06 pm

We’re in the first year of the Zharkova Solar Minimum, called by her to be from 2019 to 2055.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Time will be telling.

Zigmaster
October 28, 2019 2:12 pm

The real fraud is not about the validity of failed predictions but the deliberate re-engineering of the past. In any discussion one would assume that the past is verifiable but the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has rewritten the past regularly. If one takes into account UHI and weather station siting issues the adjustments go the opposite way from what is logical, past records probably slightly overstate temperatures. Furthermore when one realises that most of the world has no temperature data available due to remoteness of large continents and the percentage of the world which is ocean ,then methods to guesstimate temperatures by reference to homogenisation of weather stations often hundreds of miles away is fraught with corrupt practices leading to logical error bars so large as to make much data useless.
President Trump famously called global warming a Chinese hoax. It is however a global hoax and until people are held to account it will continue.
If Australia could take a lead and audit its Bureau of Meteorology , charge it’s leaders with fraud hold a very public trial and highlight to the world the deliberate nature of the deception then I think a cascade of other similar examples of manipulation will emerge globally.

Karl
October 28, 2019 2:19 pm

This post shows Allan throwing everything he’s got against the wall to see if anything sticks.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Karl
October 28, 2019 3:56 pm

More like he’s wiping the wall “like with a clothe” to remove the Green Gunk that still remains.

Reply to  Karl
October 28, 2019 5:58 pm

For “Karl”:

IN THE 20TH CENTURY, THE FOLLOWERS OF MARX IN THE SOVIET UNION AND CHINA KILLED ABOUT 130 MILLION OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

Do we really have to do this all again? Why can’t you extremists learn from your past horrific mistakes?

Oh! You say “It will all be different this time?” No, it won’t!

______________________________

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/20/economists-love-carbon-taxes-lots-of-regular-folks-dont/#comment-2563040
[excerpt]

This video by Stefan Molyneux describes Karl Marx as an incompetent, dishonest, cheating, thieving, repulsive, hypocritical and parasitic POS.

In summary, Stefan describes “Das Kapital” by Marx as “a diet book with Jabba the Hutt on the cover”. He was being kind to Marx – the man was a despicable rat.
https://youtu.be/yA2lCBJu2Gg

It is ironic that Marx’s tomb is (to some) a shrine in London, where he died in exile. The tomb was relocated and a bust erected of Marx in 1956 by the Communist Party of Great Britain.

IN THE 20TH CENTURY, THE FOLLOWERS OF MARX IN THE SOVIET UNION AND CHINA KILLED ABOUT 130 MILLION OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE.