Failed Serial Doomcasting

People sometimes ask me why I don’t believe the endless climate/energy use predictions of impending doom and gloom for the year 2050 or 2100. The reason is, neither the climate models nor the energy use models are worth a bucket of warm spit for such predictions. Folks concentrate a lot on the obvious problems with the climate models. But the energy models are just as bad, and the climate models totally depend on the energy models for estimating future emissions. However, consider the following US Energy Information Agency (EIA) predictions of energy use from 2010, quoted from here (emphasis mine):

In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected that in 2019, the U.S. would be producing about 6 million barrels of oil a day. The reality? We’re now producing 12 million barrels of oil a day.

Meanwhile, EIA projected oil prices would be more than $100 a barrel. They’re currently hovering around $60 a barrel.

EIA had projected in 2010 that the U.S. would be importing a net eight million barrels of petroleum by now, which includes crude oil and petroleum products like gasoline. In September, the U.S. actually exported a net 89 thousand barrels of petroleum.

In 2010, EIA projected that the U.S. would be producing about 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas by now. In 2018, the last full year of annual data, we produced more than 30 trillion.

The EIA had projected that coal electricity would remain dominant in the U.S. and natural gas would remain relatively stable — even drop slightly in its share of power supply. The opposite is happening. Coal-fired power is plummeting and natural gas has risen significantly.

Now remember, we are assured that these energy projections are being made by Really Smart People™, the same kind of folks making the climate predictions … and they can’t predict a mere ten years ahead? Forget about predicting a century from now, they are wildly wrong in just one decade. The EIA projections above missed the mark by 100% or more and sometimes didn’t even get the sign of the result correct … but as St. Greta the Shrill misses no opportunity to remind us, we’re supposed to totally restructure our entire global economy based on those same shonky predictions.

But I digress … Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. recently posed an interesting question—how can we fix what he called “apocalyptic” projections of future climate?

My response was:

My fix would be for all climate scientists to stop vainly trying to predict the future and focus on the past. 

Until we understand past phenomena such as the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, etc. to the point where we can tell why they started and stopped when they did and not earlier or later, pretending to understand the future is a joke.

For example, the Milankovich astronomical cycles that have correlated well with episodes of glaciation in the past say we should be in a full-blown “Ice Age” today. These cycles change the amount of sunlight in the northern hemisphere. And when the world went into the Little Ice Age (LIA) around the year 1600, there was every indication that we were headed in that direction, towards endless cold. The same fears were raised in the 1970s when the earth had been cooling for thirty years or so.

Gosh … another failed climate prediction. Shocking, I know …

Regarding why the Milankovich cycles indicated an ice age, here are Greenland temperature and solar changes in the Northern Hemisphere for the past 12,000 years or so.

But instead of the Little Ice Age preceding us plunging into sub-zero temperatures and mile-thick ice covering Chicago, the earth started to warm again towards the end of the 1700s … why?

Well, the ugly truth is, we are far from understanding the climate well enough to answer why it was warmer in Medieval times; why we went from that warmth into the LIA in the first place; why the LIA lasted as long as it did; why it didn’t continue into global glaciation; or why we’ve seen gradual slight warming, on the order of half a degree per century, from then to the present day. 

And until scientists can answer those and many similar questions about the past, why on earth should we believe their climate/energy predictions for a century or even a decade from now? 

The only thing that seems clear about all of those questions is that the answer is not “CO2”. Here’s another look at Greenland, this time with CO2 overlaid on the temperature:

My Dad used to say “Son, if something seems too good to be true … it probably is”. I never realized until today that there was a climate corollary to that, which is “Son, if something seems too bad to be true … it probably isn’t”.

So my advice is to take all such predictions of impending Thermageddon, drowned cities, endless droughts, and other horribly bad outcomes by 2100, 2050, or even 2030, with a grain of salt. Here’s what I’d consider to be the appropriate size of salt grain for the purpose …

My best to everyone,

w.

Advertisements

149 thoughts on “Failed Serial Doomcasting

  1. Couldn’t agree more. History is our friend, the UN, IPCC, CAGW activists and most climate scientists are our enemies with their bogus predictions and altering of the past.

    • We are reaping what Maurice Strong sowed when he funded ONLY the research finding HUMAN causes of global warming.

    • My father had a saying as well he quoted “Believe half of what you see one quarter of what you hear and nothing in the Media”.
      Or as it was put by Mark Twain
      “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.”

  2. Milankovitch cycles don’t indicate we should be in another glaciation yet. Indeed, if you go by the eccentricity cycle, the present Holocene interglacial should last for tens of thousands of more years. But the axial tilt cycle probably rules, on which basis there are still millennia of warmth to enjoy.

    We have however been in a temperature downtrend for at least 3000 years, since the Minoan Warm Period, if not indeed since the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum over 5000 years ago.

    Warm intervals are associated with higher solar activity, and cool periods, like the Little Ice Age, with minima. The LIA began closer to AD 1400 than 1600, suffering at least the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Minima. The late 13th and early 14th century Wolf Minimum either marks the end of the Medieval WP or beginning of the LIA CP. There was a last gasp of warmth after it in the second half of the 1300s, usually considered part of the MWP. The previous, 11th century Oort Minimum, during the MWP, was mild, especially compared to the brutal Maunder.

    • Milankovitch cycles, although dominant, don’t control everything. John Imbrie, one author of the foundational research on them, thought the inertia of glacial ice to be a major factor in causing climate to deviate from a straight prediction based on the cycles.
      https://science.sciencemag.org/content/194/4270/1121

      Ocean heat lag most likely has some influence on shorter cycles.

      • There are Many cycles we don’t know anything about yet that can line up to start an ice age.

        Just imagine a Moire’ pattern one piece of silk laid over another with some light shining through. Beautiful patterns of shifting lines, waves, looping around. It’s an example of cyclical interference in six dimensions(2 fabrics each with two patterns of threads). I’m sure there’s a mathematical name for the effect, but there is no reason our cyclical climate has to be limited to 2 or 3 variables to explain how it behaves.

        • I agree. Cyclical interference in an unknown number of dimensions would certainly lead to decades of aimless speculation and argumentation over causes and effects. And that is just what we have.

          A micro-analogy to climate- change causes would be similar to the juggling of myriad factors that designers of high-end loudspeakers must contend with. They model, they measure, they build prototypes and finally rely on listening with ears to tell if they got it right. And even then different listeners will have different opinions about the product.

    • As far as the grander picture goes, the regularity of the glacial and interglacial periods shown in the ice core sample graphs over the last million years has been enough to convince me that we are much closer to the end of the current interglacial than the beginning. Maybe we have a thousand years give or take. Maybe time is up. I’m betting that time is up, while I’m hoping that humankind still has a millennium or so left. We’ll know once winter ice begins to persist and grow year after year in the high latitudes and altitudes. So far as I know, that hasn’t happened just yet.

  3. 100%!!

    There is an arrogance in predicting the future when one cannot explain the past. There are too many loose, confounding variables in the chaotic climate. The only thing we can safely say is that most likely the future will be somewhat like the past. And maybe it will be different. The climate will change. Weather, like the markets, will fluctuate.

  4. So there is way more fossil energy to use and so more “what Greta can see” emissions to come than “scientists say” !

    – it’s worse than we thought ! Evah !

  5. “Now remember, we are assured that these energy projections are being made by Really Smart People™, the same kind of folks making the climate predictions … and they can’t predict a mere ten years ahead? Forget about predicting a century from now, they are wildly wrong in just one decade.”

    Bingo!
    Excellent illuminations, Willis!
    Thank you.

    • Thanks, ATheoK. I am constantly amused by those with great faith in computer models. I wrote my first computer program in 1963, and have written thousands of programs and models of various systems since then.

      One thing I learned is that computer programs are just the programmer’s understandings, misunderstandings, prejudices, and preferences made real and solid. They are NOT an independent look at the world. Their output is merely a transformed version of whatever the programmer believes to be true.

      Only once we can truly understand the past should we put our efforts towards the future …

      Regards to all,

      w.

  6. But, but, but … aren’t we much smarter than we were, uh, uh, last year? We’re not? How very depressing. Now I am totally, I mean totally worried.

    Well, maybe not!

  7. w. ==> The uncertainty surrounding all of these “global” and regional > century temperature records is so high that we don’t even really know what we don’t know about the past.

    We do know that the LIA was colder than today and that the RWP and MWP were warmer than the LIA.

    It is a sign of incredible innumeracy to see people like Nerem at Colorado wresting the satellite sea level numbers to try to make global sea surface height figures given in millimeters into a catastrophic problem. The same innumeracy is applied to these global temperature figures in tenths and hundredths of a degree.

    • I disagree !! Steven Mosher knows exactly what the Earth’s temperature is. The only issue I can’t remember what version of his dataset he is on.

    • “The uncertainty surrounding all of these “global” and regional > century temperature records is so high that we don’t even really know what we don’t know about the past.”

      Exactly. Uncertainty and lack of temporal resolution means many of the paleo proxies wouldn’t even show a 30 year warming trend, some wouldn’t even show a 100 year trend.

    • I’ve recently been arguing on Twitter about innumeracy idiocy with some folks who have less than a clue. Folks like Mosher showing graphs with Temperature in the title and temps in the tenths and hundredths for as early as 1800.

      When called on it the response is that they are projections using a common baseline. These folks, and that includes so-called climate scientists, don’t have a clue about the difference between counting numbers and significant digits. They are just all numbers to play with and slice and dice until you get what you want.

    • “We do know that the LIA was colder than today and that the RWP and MWP were warmer than the LIA.”

      What we know is that these historical climate fluctuations were not uniform in severity, extent, nor in time. None are as uniform, extensive nor severe as modern AGW. Also the only way to make the Holocene optimum appear warmer than today is to either halt the graph in 1950 or to assume one ice core from Greenland can be extrapolated globally. It can’t.
      But what about the ‘falling temp whilst CO2 rises’ problem? Really? A 7% increase over 4000 years? You mentioned the Milankovich cycles, but all of a sudden they don’t count? The ONLY conclusion we can draw is that “the answer is not “CO2””. Confirmation bias much?

      Modern warming and a 40% increase in CO2 are strongly correlated but that can safely be ignored right? So can the the fact that instead of an expected continuation of late Holocene cooling we see a dramatic spike. But lets ignore all that because “anything but CO2”.

      • “Modern warming and a 40% increase in CO2 are strongly correlated…”

        You misspelled “coincidental”. CO2 was far higher at the start of the current interglacial, again according to ice cores. I’d surmise the sudden decrease in CO2 was due to the rapid greening of the planet in the northern hemisphere as larger plants and trees took over and outpaced CO2 generation from living animals. We’ve only barely ticked the CO2 needle upwards during this modern age, no matter how heavy our use of hydrocarbons has been, compared to the levels of the past. Increasing the CO2 level to numbers which support more plant life is hardly a bad thing.

        When was “ice in the Arctic” supposed to disappear again? I want to book my balmy summer North Pole cruise well in advance to get a better deal on it!

      • Loydo,
        “ Modern warming and a 40% increase in CO2 are strongly correlated ……”
        How much warming as gauged by the Global average surface temperature has there been since 1880?
        The answer according to AR 5 is that between 1880 and 2010 the decadal warming is 0.064C +/- 0.015C.
        Less than 0.7 C over that period.
        The warming trend in the monthly HadCruT4 from January 2000 to April 2019 was 0.156 C. per year or a mere 1.56 C per century.
        If you exclude the freak 2015/16 El Niño the trend drops to 1.32 C per century.
        So the 40% “well correlated” CO2 increase has produced modest unthreatening warming!

  8. Those in the developing world living in poverty need energy to lift their living standards, companies are willing to provide that energy and that energy use releases CO2. Is the IPCC planning on keeping them in poverty to limit energy use to limit CO2 growth?

    When the error bars are added to IPCC forecasts, including water vapor which people don’t know how to model, the forecasts are all +/- 20 degrees Celsius which says the temperature will be somewhere between very hot and very cold in 2100.

    • This has nothing to do with Tony Heller’s content, but his presentation drives me up a wall. I spent many years making public presentations and defending my forecasts, and the way he does it causes a -9 on the believability factor. He really needs to get help on presentation.

      • But what about his content? He seems to be saying that all measured warming for the past century is due to falsified data. I can’t swallow that.

  9. Thanks for this “common sense” approach, Willis.

    When people ask why I am amongst those who are skeptical of all of the doom and gloom, I reply that I need to know why it was warm enough in Greenland for Erik the Red and his son Leif and their buddies to farm there for 400 years or so, and then why it got so cold as to freeze over again. If CO2 didn’t cause that warming, what did? Isn’t it possible that some other things affect climate, too?

    People usually take the point, then typically refer to “scientists” and “models.” They don’t accept my response that, with so many factors that obviously affect climate, including the sun, model results are often just fancied-up assumptions, not “data.”

      • The climate models are not well-behaved dogs. They may sit for a few minutes, but then they’re off chasing some shiny heat.

        • Jeff Alberts December 27, 2019 at 11:26 am

          The climate models are not well-behaved dogs. They may sit for a few minutes, but then they’re off chasing some shiny heat.

          It’s the difference between descriptive models and iterative models. I should likely do a post on that. For now, I’ll just put this up, it agrees with your statement about the dogs:

          Regards to all,

          w.

      • From someone who has built computer models for marketing purposes, yes. This is the most succinct and accurate description I’ve seen yet.

  10. Incomplete or insufficient characterization and unwieldy. Science is, with cause, a near (i.e. limited) frame of reference philosophy and practice. Forward, backward, and all around is inferred and smoothed with regular injections of brown/dark matter.

  11. This new article says that the past sea surface temperatures recordings are around 0.5 degrees Celsius or more too cold because the readings were truncated at the decimal points by the government in their records.

    Also, the canvas buckets that were used to lift water to the ship to measure temperatures lost around a half degree in hauling the buckets up to the ships.

    That means the sea surface temperatures in the past that might be used for modeling make the present SST seem much warmer than the past because of measurement errors.

    https://www.npr.org/2019/08/19/750778010/how-much-hotter-are-the-oceans-the-answer-begins-with-a-bucket

    • This has nothing to do with Tony Heller’s content, but his presentation drives me up a wall. I spent many years making public presentations and defending my forecasts, and the way he does it causes a -9 on the believability factor. He really needs to get help on presentation.

    • A HALF a Degree!!! I’ll bet none of them have done a SST temperature reading with a bucket, I have and there is NO WAY that bucket of water is going to lose 1/2 a degree from the time the bucket is dipped in the water until measured unless you are in an arctic/antarctic air mass where the air temp is 30 or more degrees below the SST and then **maybe** but that isn’t the real problem. None of the merchant ships who send out the SST with their observations dip buckets anymore. They use the seawater injection temperature (the temperature of the seawater that is used for cooling the engines) which is **warmer** than the true SST because of the distance it travels from outside the hull to the engines.

  12. In a century a lot could happen. Volcano activity effecting weather. A couple of solar cycles unless the sun simply goes quiet as it did in the Maunder minimum. There could be a repeat of the Carrington event of 1859. Something else perhaps, an unknown unknown. A century is longer than the average human lifetime. All the events that make up the disasters that have happened in your lifetime are less than that century. From Civil Wars to drought, flood and famine sprinkle every century. In a century a lot does happen.

    • They might even realize that the null hypothesis they have been using for surface temperature of rocky planet with an atmosphere is wrong, that back radiation hypothesis is pseudoscience, and rediscover the Kinetic Theory of Gases.

  13. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
    If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

    They know their audience are aligned in principle and interests, and “good Americans” who will defer (e.g. “go along to get along”) to the consensus.

  14. “the Milankovich astronomical cycles that have correlated well with episodes of glaciation in the past say we should be in a full-blown “Ice Age” today”

    Can you please provide the source for that statement? Others who track orbital mechanics (like David Dilley) maintain we are not there yet but our intergalacial period will be over around 2100+

    • It all depends on what the sun might do.
      Steinhilber and Beer using their method produced prediction for next 500 years as shown here
      http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/S-V-prediction.htm
      As you can see I have added my own alternative calculations, using as a base centenary cycle (103 years) including couple of periodic harmonics, which well agree with S & B predictions suggesting that there are strong peaks around every 450 years.
      Back to Milankovic: If planetary orbital configuration falls when the solar is high, then the interglacial end will be delayed until the sun enters prolong period of a long low activity.
      According to the above, you may well be right, the current interglacial will terminate sometime between 2100 and 2300, while the next solar peak around 2400 arrives too late to save the humanity from the inevitable climate catastrophe.

      • Javier, who sometimes comments here, and is a frequent flyer at Judy Curry’s blog, published some deep dives into Milankovitch at Judy Curry’s. This is a quote from the into to his most recent post:

        “Analysis of interglacials of the past 800 Kyr shows they depend on obliquity-linked summer energy, ice-volume, and eccentricity, and they end at glacial inception after ~ 6000 years of Neoglaciation-type temperature decline. The lag between orbital forcing and ice volume change indicates the orbital threshold for glacial inception is crossed thousands of years before glacial inception, and the Holocene went through that threshold long ago. In the absence of sufficient anthropogenic forcing glacial inception should take place in 1500-2500 years.”

        “Nature Unbound X – The next glaciation” Posted on August 14, 2018
        https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/14/nature-unbound-x-the-next-glaciation/

        Note: That is the tenth in a series. You should follow the chain back to its begining. They are math heavy and kind of rough sledding for a complete amateur such as I.

  15. “Until we understand past phenomena such as the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, etc. to the point where we can tell why they started and stopped when they did and not earlier or later, pretending to understand the future is a joke.”

    Well that one’s easy. You pretend those periods didn’t exist and quote Michael Mann’s work.

    Seriously though, how can the scientific clown Michael Mann still be pontificating and pretending he’s a leading climate scientist? This was his field of specialty, and his dumbass research managed to miss both these significant climate periods.

  16. Simple common sense suggests that a Millennial Solar activity peak was reached in 1991 +/- and a corresponding global temperature and turning point from warming to cooling was reached at 2004+/-.It’s not “rocket science” or a “wicked problem” in the long term- and usefully plausible long term forecasts are possible.Short term weather forecasting is much more difficult.
    Here is the Abstract from my 2017 paper linked below
    “This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    These general general trends were disturbed by the Super El Nino of 2016/17. The effect of this short term event have been dissipating so that “If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    See my 2017 paper “The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.”
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    And /or My Blog-posts http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-millennial-turning-point-solar.html ( See Fig1)
    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XXHivbXcr7U/W9taWv4M2LI/AAAAAAAAAq8/mSUrIxZqDmkf-9eNsZPhbIXLEf1LcdtzACEwYBhgL/s1600/Leannew.png
    and https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
    also see the discussion with Professor William Happer at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
    Check also the RSS data at http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
    I pick the Millennial temperature turning point peak here at 2005 – 4 at 0.58
    I suggest that if the 2021 temperature is lower than that (16 years without warming ) the crisis forecasts would obviously be seriously questionable and provide no secure basis for restructuring the world economy at a cost of trillions of dollars.
    The El Nino RSS peak was at 2016 – 2 at 1.2
    Latest month was 2019-11 at 0.71
    However the whole UNFCCC circus was designed to produce action even without empirical
    justification. See
    https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
    ” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, later signed by 196 governments.
    The objective of the Convention is to keep CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed would prevent dangerous man made interference with the climate system.
    This treaty is a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
    It says :
    “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
    causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
    irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
    such measures”
    Apocalyptic forecasts are used as the main drivers of demands for action and for enormous investments such as those in the new IPCC SR1.5 report .
    The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.

  17. I have been following fisheries models since about 1990, and their parallel failures suggest a larger common problem. This model, 25 authors (too many but at least two older authors near end good scientists, one working on sea turtles for decades) compiled a large data set, with currents (too standardized), but paper seems to realize its remaining problems. Still missing younger stages out there in the sargassum or somewhere, but conservation of sea turtles mostly a success. Really smart people know their limitations better.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191223122833.htm
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecog.04929
    Open access

  18. If you add in inflation, EIA projected oil prices would be more than $118 a barrel today. Or alternatively a barrel of oil today is less than $51.00 in 2010 dollars.

  19. We do know what causes Little Ice Ages:
    Scientific paper describes a model that is 97% accurate going back thousands of years, predicts the beginning of a little ice age (Grand Solar Minimum) in 10.5 years!
    Executive summary:
    https://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html

    Here is full paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283862631

    Follow-up paper:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316950696_On_a_role_of_quadruple_component_of_magnetic_field_in_defining_solar_activity_in_grand_cycles

    or http://tinyurl.com/yap388av

    Latest paper:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316921302_Reinforcing_the_double_dynamo_model_with_solar-terrestrial_activity_in_the_past_three_millennia

    or http://tinyurl.com/y9m2xk46

    Dear Mr. Walter et al,

    Our analysis of solar magnetic field is based on Principal component Analysis published in 2012 (Zharkova et al, MNRAS, http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/slmv5/kinetics/MNRAS-2012-Zharkova-2943-53.pdf ).

    In 2015 we published the break-through paper: Zharkova et al., 2015 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689 which explained the occurrence of grand minima on a (semi) regular basis during the past millennia owing to beating effect of two dynamo waves of the sun formed in the inner and outer layers of the solar interior. Later we reported paper by Zharkova et al, 2018a http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/slmv5/kinetics/reply2usoskin_jastp17.pdf which have the proofs that the solar grand minima occurred on semi-regular basis in the past 5 millennia and will continue to occur in the future millennia. Some discrepancies with Sporer minimum are explained by the explosion of a supernova Vela Junior in the Southern Hemisphere that gave a strong flux of cosmic rays on the solar system which overriden the carbon-darting in 13-14 centuries and led to wrong impression that it was a solar grand minimum while it was a supernova gamma-rain on the Earth.

    As you can figure out from our Fig.3 from the paper in Nature SR, Zharkova et al., 2015, the upcoming grand minimum will be seen only during the cycles 25-27 (2020-2053). After this time in cycle 28 the visible solar activity will be restored back to normal. Moreover, even in these years 2020-2053 the most reduced activity will be seen during the minima of solar activity between cycles 25 and 26, cycle 26 itself and then later between cycles 26 and 27. These 3 cycles will be a modern grand solar minimum, similar to the one we had in 17-18 century (Maunder Minimum) but twice shorter that the one in 17 century. The solar activity goes regularly through these grand solar minima (e.g. Wolf, Oort or Homer minima as described in our papers published recently Zharkova et al, 2017 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04482.pdf Zharkova et al, 2018b http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/slmv5/kinetics/zharkova_iau335_paper1.pdf.

    These GSMs occur every 350-400 years and are regular features of solar activity cause by interference of dynamo waves produced by solar dynamo in two different layers (inner and outer ones) (Zharkova et al, 2015).

    In the RAS press-release of our paper in Nature SR in 2015 http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/slmv5/kinetics/press-release%20-NU2015_list_nat.pdf we shown that the solar irradiance is decreased by 3% only while the average temperature was reduced by more than a degree. This suggested that the temperature decrease was not mainly caused by a descries of solar irradiance but by a decrease of magnetic field. This in turn leads to the intensity increase of cosmic rays which break the high clouds and lead to opening the ‘greenhouse’ to the interplanetary space. Reduction of solar magnetic field leads also to increase of the role of planetary magnetic field, increased volcanic and earthquake activities. These processes are not included in any of the modern models describing the terrestrial temperature variations which cannot explain even the previous grand minimum – Maunder Minimum.

    We hope this answers all the points raised in the u-tube presentation. which, actually, exposes the deficiencies of the current climate models more than the problems with the upcoming grand minimum which is upon us in 2020-2053. We will see the developing story in front of our eyes and decide who is correct.

    https://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html

    • “http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/slmv5/kinetics/reply2usoskin_jastp17.pdf which have the proofs that the solar grand minima occurred on semi-regular basis in the past 5 millennia and will continue to occur in the future millennia. Some discrepancies with Sporer minimum are explained by the explosion of a supernova Vela Junior in the Southern Hemisphere that gave a strong flux of cosmic rays on the solar system which overriden the carbon-darting in 13-14 centuries and led to wrong impression that it was a solar grand minimum while it was a supernova gamma-rain on the Earth”; What effect will this have on archaeological carbon dating procedures, and are these allowed for when doing age estimates?

        • It would appear that I have overquoted. What caught my attention was the part “the explosion of a supernova Vela Junior in the Southern Hemisphere that gave a strong flux of cosmic rays on the solar system which overriden the carbon-darting in 13-14 centuries”, which seems to imply that the carbon-dating clock can be reset by gamma particles, in this case from a super-nova. I am curious as to whether this is accounted for when carbon dating for archaeological purposes, and if so, how it is done. Thanks for replying.

        • What is 2700z? I know that 2400z is midnight UTC, but I haven’t heard of 2700z. Do you mean the year 2700? If so, that is further away in the future than the oldest recorded history in the past and is not a thing to be concerned about.

    • See https://agwnot.blogspot.com/ for a very similar projection done by a non-mathematician simply looking at what seemed to be the most eyeball visible solar cycles plus the millenial cycle. It is so nice to get confirmation by people who can really do mathematical analyses, several years later and completely independently. Now the trick is to identify the drivers of the shallow and deep grand solar minima – probably planetary motion.

  20. “But the energy models are just as bad, and the climate models totally depend on the energy models for estimating future emissions.”

    err NO.

    climate models use CONCENTRATION PATHWAYS, not emissions,

    RCP 8.5 means that the concentration of c02 is set.. INDEPENDENT OF EMISSIONS.

    its in the acronymn
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway

    in Ar4 it was they used SRES EMISSION SCENARIOS.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios

    • Thanks, Mosh. Two points on that.

      First, emissions pathways were used rather than Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) for all computer models from the first ones in the 1980s or so until 2014. So it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that emissions are not relevant. They were found to be most relevant for the first thirty years or so that we played this game.

      Next, just how do you think that they estimated future concentration pathways? Do you reckon that they just picked numbers out of the air? Seems doubtful, since the results using the two methods are very, very similar.

      Do you think that they simply made them up? Nope. They developed the RCPs from the projected emissions. Here’s the IPCC on the subject, WG1AR5 Chapter 12:

      A range of assumptions about the magnitude and pace of future emissions helps scientists develop different emission scenarios, upon which climate model projections are based. Different climate models, meanwhile, provide alternative representations of the Earth’s response to those forcings, and of natural climate variability. Together, ensembles of models, simulating the response to a range of different scenarios, map out a range of possible futures, and help us understand their uncertainties.

      The IPCC, in turn, cites The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300, which says:

      The four RCPs are based on multi-gas emission scenarios which were selected from the published literature (Fujino et al. 2006; Smith and Wigley 2006; Clarke et al. 2007; Riahi et al. 2007; van Vuuren et al. 2007; Hijioka et al. 2008; Wise et al. 2009) and updated for release as RCPs (Masui et al. 2011; Riahi et al. 2011; Thomson et al. 2011; van Vuuren et al. 2011b).

      To summarize, just so everyone is clear: the RCPS are not emissions scenarios, but they are BASED ON the emissions scenarios.

      So Steve, I’m afraid that while your statement is true (for the last 5 years we’ve used RCPs rather than emissions scenarios), it’s a difference that makes no difference because the RCPs are totally based on the emissions scenarios.

      Best of the holidays to you, my friend,

      w.

  21. I wonder what the source of CO2 concentration rise was from about Year -2500 to 0. Probably the industrial revolution and internal combustion engine. Or mammoth farts.

  22. Agreed Willis. Understanding the how and why of past climate is the key to understanding what will happen with future climate. Unfortunately, our understanding of past climate is like a fuzzy and grainy photo of Big Foot. There’s something there and it’s bi-pedal, but there’s no bringing it into better focus using the photo we have and, while everyone agrees the photo shows something there’s no agreement on what, exactly, it is. Maybe, in a few hundred years, we’ll be able to sharpen the image a bit and come to an agreement on what the photo shows. My guess is that it won’t be Big Foot, but it’s cousin, the Yeti.

    Cheers

    Max

  23. “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future” – Neils Bohr

    Among the best comments about science ever recorded.

  24. Willis’s title of failed serial doomcasting is priceless. It reminds me of all of the faux religions predicting the end of the earth to take effect on a specific date, all long past. I hope he doesn’t mind my using the phrase anytime someone questions why I am, among other reasons, a climate skeptic.

    • Stu, I toss my words on the electronic winds in the hopes that someone will do what you are talking about, take them and use them. I learned long ago that I can accomplish most anything if I don’t care who gets the credit …

      I first came up with the term to describe Dr. Paul Ehrlich, the king of them all. He’s still at Stanford, professors have no need to ever be right, they won’t lose their jobs.

      And amazingly, he’s still making the exact same predictions of famines and food riots and the like … he just says he got the timing wrong before, but it’s sure to happen in the next 20 years, just wait and see …

      In passing, let me say that Dr. Ehrlich is who I always think of when someone says either “But Ms. X has a PhD, she must know what she’s talking about” or “Mr. Y doesn’t have a PhD, you can’t believe a word he says” … yeah, right.

      Best to you,

      w.

  25. “Until we understand past phenomena such as the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, etc. to the point where we can tell why they started and stopped when they did and not earlier or later, pretending to understand the future is a joke.”

    My thoughts exactly. And a reason why there has been so much effort to show a consistent result from paleo recons from “the Team” and associates. Even if it means overweighting certain inappropriate proxies so that they overwhelm all the others, or flip the signs of other proxies in order to get the desired result.

  26. … we should be in a full-blown “Ice Age” today.

    I think we are waiting for the next “glacial advance” of the current Ice Age.
    Glacial advances appear to start slowly and finish more abruptly.

    As for Milankovich cycles:
    Here is an interesting post by Luboš Motl regarding the issue – review/analysis of a report by Gerard Roe:
    people confuse functions and their derivatives

  27. How ‘climate scientists’ (whatever that means) think they can predict the future with all the variables involved in the calculation is beyond my comprehension. CO2 is just one factor on a long and uncertain list.

  28. I don’t believe the scary forecasts because the earth has had much, much higher CO2 levels in the not too distant past, without any of these scary things happening.

  29. Thank the Lord for Willis. Gusts of “fresh air” circulate around our understandings – against the stale ,fetid air, of the ignorant, the greedy and the would be manipulators!

  30. Keyword “uncertain”.

    There is uncertainty regarding how much we’ve warmed since the end of the LIA, there is uncertainty on how much warming atmospheric carbon dioxide causes, and there is uncertainty regarding how much of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by human activity.

    But, you know, the science is settled.

  31. “The EIA had projected that coal electricity would remain dominant in the U.S. and natural gas would remain relatively stable — even drop slightly in its share of power supply. The opposite is happening. Coal-fired power is plummeting and natural gas has risen significantly.”
    ‘Big oil’ is the main beneficiary of the carbon lie.
    No surprise there.

  32. They would certainly explain why temperatures have dropped in unison with sea level over the past thousands of years.
    But I wonder if the cycle of eccentricity in progress can explain the accelerated migration of the magnetic pole.

  33. Daily space weather news from the astrophysics/plasma point of view, for an alternative to MSM climate news, with comments and links to scientific papers. It’s a different kind of gloom and doom about the pebble we ride through the cosmos.

  34. “Until we understand past phenomena such as the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, etc. to the point where we can tell why they started and stopped when they did and not earlier or later, pretending to understand the future is a joke.”

    Better to look carefully at a phenomenon which is better instrumented. While not up to modern standards, the data set relating to ‘The Blip is probably the best you’ll get of a temperature anomaly. Discard the Climategate adjustments and see what can be picked out of the real records.

    JF

  35. Simple common sense suggests that a Millennial Solar activity peak was reached in 1991 +/- and a corresponding global temperature peak and turning point from warming to cooling was reached at 2004+/-.It’s not “rocket science” or a “wicked problem” in the long term. Reasonably plausible multidecadal to millennial length forecasts can be made with useful probable accuracy.Short term weather forecasting is much more difficult.
    Here is the Abstract from my 2017 paper linked below
    “This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    These general general trends were disturbed by the Super El Nino of 2016/17. The effect of this short term event have been dissipating so that “If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    See my 2017 paper “The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.”
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    And /or My Blog-posts http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-millennial-turning-point-solar.html ( See Fig1)
    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XXHivbXcr7U/W9taWv4M2LI/AAAAAAAAAq8/mSUrIxZqDmkf-9eNsZPhbIXLEf1LcdtzACEwYBhgL/s1600/Leannew.png
    and https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
    also see the discussion with Professor William Happer at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
    For the current situation check the RSS data at : http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
    I pick the Millennial turning point peak here at 2005 – 4 at 0.58
    I suggest that if the 2021 temperature is lower than that (16 years without warming ) the crisis forecasts would obviously be seriously questionable and provide no secure basis for restructuring the world economy at a cost of trillions of dollars.
    The El Nino RSS peak was at 2016 – 2 at 1.2
    Latest month was 2019-11 at 0.71
    However the whole UNFCCC circus was designed to produce action even without empirical
    justification. See
    https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
    ” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, later signed by 196 governments.
    The objective of the Convention is to keep CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed would prevent dangerous man made interference with the climate system.
    This treaty is a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
    It says :
    “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
    causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
    irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
    such measures”
    Apocalyptic forecasts are used as the main drivers of demands for action and for enormous investments such as those in the new IPCC SR1.5 report .”
    The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.
    The editors of Science and Nature magazines have acted as Guardians of the establishment position and have sought to promote radical solutions to a non existent warming problem. Most of the MSM, particularly the BBC, and the western eco-left chattering classes now promote anti-development anti-capitalist crisis ideologies based on badly flawed science.

  36. Extrapolation of future conditions using the recent past is not scientific nor is it useful for purposes of business. Which is largely why all the ten year energy prices projections we’re so far off.

    I don’t know what projections were made in 2007, when the iPhone was introduced, as to future smart phone use would be a decade later … but I will go ahead and assert that virtually every person in the world (including a very large portion of elementary school age children, and very high proportions of impoverished third worlders) would own a smart phone in 2017 would have elicited massive hoots and derision and calls to buy a bridge or swampland in Florida.

    So how can we possibly predict future energy use world wide, decades out, and any resulting CO2 emissions in a world with large scale fracking, next gen fission reactors, renewable sources, and quite likely nuclear fusion technology dominating the future energy supply? And how can we accurately forecast energy demand in a rapidly developing group of nations like China, India, Indonesia, etc., and in the face of energy conservation developments like LED lighting, high efficiency appliances, more efficient transportation machines, etc?

    • There were plenty of devices before the iPhone. I used several of them. I used to use an iPaq (from Compaq) and a folding keyboard to take meeting notes, instead of lugging around a laptop (which were heavier back then). The iPhone just made the next step, integrating the phone and camera. It was a big step, granted, but not that large a leap.

      • The real benefit of the iPhone was the ability to actually SEE what you were doing. Nokia had cameras on the phones in 1998, at least they demoed them at CEBIT 98 in Hanover, Germany. The micro display on the phone was a serious handicap to actually doing anything useful.

        • I had a smart phone a few years before the iPhone. Full touch screen, clamshell with full hardware keyboard, windows CE. In many ways much better than the iPhone.

          I also had an mp3 player many years before the iPod. Much cheaper, maybe not better, though.

          Apple really never produce anything new, they just use existing technology to create a more accessible product with better marketing. The only thing they have ever done which was innovative (as fast as I can tell, I never saw it before the iPhone) is the ‘pinch to zoom’ part of the user interface. Everything else is just copied.

          • Apple produced the smart phone for the masses. Prior to iPhone, the masses were totally ignorant of smart phones. The typical question asked by the average person on the street in 2007 was “why on earth would I ever need a “smart phone”?”. Now people cannot imagine living without their smart phones.

            It does not matter a bit who popularized and massified smart phones – my point is not to glorify Apple.. my point is that NOBODY predicted in 2007 that nearly all people on the planet would within a decade own and depend every day on their smart phone digital communications devices. NOBODY.

            That was just 12 years ago

      • I too used a smart phone years before iPhone .. but prior to iPhone, virtually all smart phone users were business people and professionals like lawyers, and even then only a small proportion of such folks had such devices. Those early devices were terrible compared to iPhone, no wonder they were only of value to a tiny percentage of the population. Sure, Android phones came along and took much of the market away from Apple’s iPhone .. but the Androids were and remain a knockoff of iPhone and IOS.

        Apple created and marketed the first smart phone for the masses. Today most elementary school children own and use smart phones. My own grandchildren started using their parents’s smart phone at age 4. Today your average goat herder in the middle east owns a smart phone. That was impossible to forecast 12 years ago, as it would have seemed utterly preposterous.

  37. What’s wrong with us that we can’t get this stuff into the public domain and debated? Aren’t we trying hard enough?
    I think we need volume- many letters, many complaints.

  38. I’ve been wondering if any of the climate models show a returning iceage if CO2 levels are reduced to pre-industrial levels? Is there a model predicting an ice Age if CO2 levels are maintained at current levels? If yes to either when will it be?

  39. Willis, looking at the data source for the CO2 the most recent datapoint appears to be 173 years BP (1777 CE), however, it doesn’t look like that on the graph? Perhaps that could be shown in the legend?
    Also since the effect of CO2 is expected to depend on log(CO2) it would be more realistic to present it so on the graph.

  40. The simplest explanation to climate cycles is that the Sun shines hotter/cooler over long periods. But what scientist is going to earn his pay with that theory? First, some solar specialist must come up with a mechanism for the Sun to do that, regardless of the circumstantial evidence for it. In particular, it seems all our planets have warmed recently — if so, it’s obviously Solar output. Why isn’t that being published?

    BTW, Willis, you may want to re-think your paragraph: [My Dad used to say “Son, if something seems too good to be true … it probably is”. I never realized until today that there was a climate corollary to that, which is “Son, if something seems too bad to be true … it probably isn’t”.] The 2 corrolaries should have the same outcome.

    • NZ Willy December 27, 2019 at 11:23 am

      The simplest explanation to climate cycles is that the Sun shines hotter/cooler over long periods.

      Willy, I wish the world were that simple. H. L. Mencken is reputed to have said “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” See my post here on the subject.

      BTW, Willis, you may want to re-think your paragraph: [My Dad used to say “Son, if something seems too good to be true … it probably is”. I never realized until today that there was a climate corollary to that, which is “Son, if something seems too bad to be true … it probably isn’t”.] The 2 corollaries should have the same outcome.

      OK, call it a “parallel” or something, I’m easy.

      Regards,

      w.

    • Yeah, it should also end in “is” instead of “isn’t”. Potent, well argued article from WE. Thank you.

  41. “My fix would be for all climate scientists to stop vainly trying to predict the future and focus on the past.”

    This sensible idea assumes that scientists have a say in what research they choose. In fact, their options are highly restricted by funding opportunities, by the acceptability of their research’s conclusions (within their home institutions and the community at large), and by the impact factor of the journals that accept publication of their work, as determined by the political outlook of those publications’ referees.

    Even prominent dissenters like Lindzen, Curry, or Happer have reported how they were ostracized. The lesson of Climategate is that we’re in a political/propaganda battle where deceit dominates the discourse. PR pros give deceptive presentations without fear on contradiction by the press, and dissent is suppressed by gaslighting.

  42. Just think of all those 7 year olds coming home today brainwashed by their teachers that we have 7 years left. They will be rebellious 14 year old teens who realize they were subject to a con job and the veils will fall from before their eyes.

  43. ““The day of Sunday, July 4, 1976, the 200th birthday of the United States of America, will dawn on a nation not in celebration but one that will be desperately trying to save itself from the crush of a collapsing, economy because of a shortage of energy.”
    He envisions an unemployment rate of 22.6 per cent with some 31 million cars unable to move for lack of gasoline; 20 million homes without oil or gas and a million businesses, from manufacturing plants to barber shops, forced to close down.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/1973/04/17/archives/energy-crisis-shortages-amid-plenty.html

    Read this article, they mention resource use without global warming which is what is mentioned today with global warming. Since we’ve found new oil reserves, looks like The issue has switched from peak oil (And the NEIO) to global warming.

  44. The ever growing list of the past now 30 years of wrong climate predictions has two ineluctable consequences.

    It continues to strengthen the easy skeptical case against CAGW model consequences.

    It continues to force warmunists into ever longer term predictions, less capable of being embarassingly falsified when ‘by now’ arrives—since it won’t in their lifetimes. But to be sufficiently scary so far out, predictions are also ever more exaggerated and reliant on ‘tipping points’ when nothing yet has tipped.

  45. As I have shown in my papers the solar irradiance AND solar wind determine the temperatures in earth. People usually forget to look at solar wind when they look at the sun. They only take into account the solar activity and solar irradiance. As I have shown the solar wind is decisive. It manipulates the geomagnetic field and cloud covering. Temperatures oscillate according to the sun. By adding the AMO index oscillation (that counts for internal system variability) to the two solar constituents, we get an extremely accurate temperature projection. As soon as AMO turns negative we shall experience a strong cooling. That is one degree cooling by 2100 finally.

    • ”As soon as AMO turns negative we shall experience a strong cooling. That is one degree cooling by 2100 finally.”

      And probably more ”extreme” weather with it.

  46. Simple common sense suggests that a Millennial Solar activity peak was reached in 1991 +/- and a corresponding global temperature peak and turning point from warming to cooling was reached at 2004+/-.It’s not “rocket science” or a “wicked problem” in the long term. Multidecadal to Millennial forecasts with usable probabilities for success can be made and should be part of the discussion by policy makers. Shorter term weather forecasting is much more difficult.
    Here is the Abstract from my 2017 paper linked below
    “This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    These general trends were disturbed by the Super El Nino of 2016/17. The effect of this short term event have been dissipating so that “If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    See my 2017 paper “The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.”
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    And /or My Blog-posts http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-millennial-turning-point-solar.html ( See Fig1)
    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XXHivbXcr7U/W9taWv4M2LI/AAAAAAAAAq8/mSUrIxZqDmkf-9eNsZPhbIXLEf1LcdtzACEwYBhgL/s1600/Leannew.png
    Fig 1
    and https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
    also see the discussion with Professor William Happer at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
    “These general trends were disturbed by the Super El Nino of 2016/17. The effect of this short term event have been dissipating so that “If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    For the current position check the RSS data at http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
    I pick the Millennial turning point peak here at 2005 – 4 at 0.58
    I suggest that if the 2021 temperature is lower than that (16 years without warming ) the crisis forecasts would obviously be seriously questionable and provide no secure basis for restructuring the world economy at a cost of trillions of dollars.
    The El Nino RSS peak was at 2016 – 2 at 1.2
    Latest month was 2019-11 at 0.71
    However the whole UNFCCC circus was designed to produce action even without empirical
    justification. See
    https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
    ” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, later signed by 196 governments.
    The objective of the Convention is to keep CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed would prevent dangerous man made interference with the climate system.
    This treaty is a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
    It says :
    “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
    causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
    irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
    such measures”
    Apocalyptic forecasts have been used to create the current state of climate crisis and hysteria and the demands for enormous CO2 reducing investments such as those in the new IPCC SR1.5 report .
    The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports, the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias , academic consensus group think and the built in human need to feel virtuous by saving the world.

  47. When talking about anything climate-science related these days, I think “regression to the mean” is better explained by starting with the alternative phrase of “reversion to mediocrity”. Even Wikipedia does sometimes produce a gem.

  48. Quoting a quote in support of a quibble: “EIA had projected in 2010 that the U.S. would be importing a net eight million barrels of petroleum … the U.S. actually exported a net 89 thousand barrels of petroleum.”

    I’m enough of a snowflake to be triggered to melt-down by mixed scale numbers like that. The EIA or journalists doing the comparison should no more compare millions to thousands than apples to oranges. Nor should single digit precision compare to double. Bad wording turns numbers to mush.

    Saying about 8000 thousands to about 90 thousands, makes the comparison more comprehensible.

    It wouldn’t be unfairly misleading to compare 8000 thousand to 80 thousand, or being off by a factor of one hundred.

  49. Climate Science is primitive and still in a bloodletting phase.

    Of course since belief in Politics – which is the new religion – staunchly needs it, it will continue.

  50. I agree, with Willis-san.

    There is strong evidence that: a) 1,000-year Warming Periods occur (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Modern), b) the LIA (1280~1820) was likely caused by Granda Solar Minima Events, (Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton—although Willis doesn’t concur on this), c) The 1933~1996 Grand Solar Maximum event (the strongest sunspot activity in 11,400 years) contributed to 20th Century warming, d) ENSO (especially Super El Niño’s) add a lot noise to short term Global temp noise, e) global temps closely follow 30-year PDO/AMO warm/cool ocean cycles, e) CAGW’s ECS prediction of 3C~5C is impossible to explain by physics/empirical evidence, and is most likely around 0.6C, f) Milankovitch cycles closely follow glacial/interglacial warm/cool cycles, and g) the 1.33 billion KM^3 of ocean water is one gigantic heat sink that thankfully only gives up its stored heat reluctantly due to the laws of entropy.

    CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis given the already huge disparity between global warming projections vs reality, and it’s untenable to still believe CO2 is the climate control knob.

    The coming 30-year PDO/AMO cool cycles, combined with low sunspot activity will soon make the CAGW hypothesis even more of a joke than it already is…

  51. Measurements of oxygen isotopes in Greenland and Antarctica ice cores allow reconstruction of ancient temperatures back 800,000 years and measurements of radiocarbon and Beryllium-10 indicate the intensity of cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere.
    Sunspots are a reflection of the strength of the sun’s magnetic field, which acts as shield for cosmic rays approaching the Earth. When the strength of the sun’s magnetic field is reduced, more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere. In every case, when sunspot numbers are low, the Earth’s climate is cool, and whenever sunspot numbers are high, the Earth’s climate is warm.
    The intensity of incoming cosmic rays determines the rate of production of beryllium-10 and radiocarbon. Radio‒carbon is taken in by plants and other life forms and preserved for thousands of years where it gradually decays. Age measurements based on the amount of remaining 14C can be compared with independent calendar years, allowing determination of 14C production rates. Measurement of production rates 14C can be used to determine the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth in the past.
    Beryllium-10 is produced in the upper atmosphere by collision of cosmic
    particles with oxygen. The higher the incidence of cosmic rays, the more 10Be is produced. Beryllium-10 falls out of the atmosphere with snow and is incorp‒orated in glacial ice. Thus, measurement of the amount of 10Be in ice cores can be used to determine the intensity of cosmic rays in the past. High amounts of 10Be in ice cores means high levels of cosmic rays in the atmosphere then.
    Sunspot numbers, indicating solar magnetic strength, and 10Be and/or radiocarbon production rates, indicating cosmic ray intensity, were examined for every period of cooling or warming for which data are available. In every case examined in this study, whenever sunspot numbers were low and/or 10Be and/or radiocarbon levels were high, the Earth’s climate was cold. In every case when sunspot numbers were high and/or 10Be and/or radiocarbon levels were low, the Earth’s climate was warm . Thus, what these data show is that fluctuations of the strength of the sun’s magnetic field is the principal control of the Earth’s climate, including the origin of the Ice Ages.

    • Don Esterbrook, what you did not mention is that the cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere cause cascades of muons (high energy heavy electrons) that interact with the lower atmosphere to produce the micro particles that are necessary for cloud production. These lower level clouds reflect sunlight thus cooling the earth. Also, in general the cosmic flux that the solar system sees depends on where the sun is in the galaxy. Nearby supernova also affect the degree of cloudiness. None of these effects are quick. Greta does not have to worry.

      • One of the problems with condensation (clouds) on ionic particles is that they need to be big enough for condensation to occur. A lot of ions created need to be enlarged to sizes large enough to promote clouds. Svensmark showed that this indeed does happen.

        The astonishing (at least to me) about this process is that EVERY CLIMATE CHANGE I could find in the last 800,000 years coincided with increased 10Be production, even extremely abrupt climate changes in the Ice Age. There were no exceptions. The data are in my new book on Amazon.com

      • Willis,

        Like you, there isn’t any data I ‘don’t like.’ I go wherever data takes me, regardless of where it leads.

        The URL above doesn’t work. Don’t keep me in suspense–what’s the other reason?

        Have you looked at the data in my book? In EVERY climate change I could find over the past 800,000 years 10Be was exactly coincident, without exception, even the abrupt climate changes of the D/O events. That tells me there is a cause-and-effect relationship.

        Don

        • Thanks, Don, and glad to hear your statement on following the data.

          How bizarre, though. The link works fine for me, just tested it.

          The study is entitled:

          Evidence for climate modulation of the 10Be solar activity proxy
          JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D21105, doi:10.1029/2005JD006764, 2006

          w.

  52. Saw an article on CNN the other day, fretting about how no one is alarmed about the climate emergencyexcept young people, and why haven’t people been convinced by all the catastrophe going on all around us?

    The answer is because there is no climate catastrophe happening, and they’ve been saying there is one about to happen any minute now for decades. Only youth believe it because only youth can be convinced that in ten years something bad will happen – once you are over 30 and see ten years go by and nothing happens, you get angry about being lied to and start ignoring them.

    • This is it, exactly. I don’t understand how anyone who lived through the Al Gore era can look back and honestly say, “Well, they were wrong about ALL that stuff, but they’re right this time!” And even young people should be able to look back on those past predictions (since they’re all on the internet), and realize there’s not just poor/weak modeling going on, but an outright agenda of misinformation.

  53. It’s not just climate and energy. Food production was another huge fail, by Paul Ehrlich. He’s still at the doom and gloom wheel attempting to drive the bus off a cliff. Related, Ehrlich predicted population would outgrow that food production causing mass starvation. Ehrlich, like many other people, didn’t and couldn’t account for emerging technologies to increase production and reduce manpower. Fossil fuels are the same thing. New technologies have emerged allowing us to extract products we couldn’t before or were too expensive to make practical. We also have empirical evidence showing that as societies industrialize, people tend to have less children. It’s estimated that our population will peak, and then eventually even drop somewhat as more countries industrialize. The bottom line there is that if you want to control population, we need to proliferate fossil fuels around the globe to help continue industrializing every country. The attendant benefits emerging from industrialization are too numerous to count.

  54. wow people are finally waking up to the fact that weather forecasting has become political propaganda. shows what kind of evil people run the tv networks. they think it is better to lie to advance the political agenda then to tell the truth.

  55. How can more CO2 warm the earth’s surface? I don’t think it can. Let’s follow IR photons as they rattle around from CO2 molecule to CO2 molecule until they hit the surface or reach space.

    By my calculations, 99.925% of IR photons that can interact with CO2 (let’s call them ‘P’) are returned to the earth’s surface before they can reach space. The mean free path of P is about 33 meters at sea level (based on Google searching). The distance to space is about 100km, which is too far for a random wandering IR photon to reach. P is almost certain to be returned to the surface before it reaches space. Only 0.075% of P will reach space. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will not change the amount of P that is returned from the atmosphere back to the earth’s surface. Therefore, adding more CO2 will not “trap” or “add” any more energy to the surface.

    I have built a C++ model to simulate how an IR photon randomly rattles around to track where it goes. I have 35+ years of experience in physics-based software modeling, so I don’t think I’m a complete hack. This model uses a spherical earth, an earth-centered earth-fixed coordinate (ECEF) system, a random number generator to pick a random direction (ground bearing & elevation angle), and a Chi-squared probability function to randomly compute the distance traveled. The mean free path traveled is a function of atmospheric density, which is a function of altitude. The higher up in the atmosphere the farther the photon can travel. After simulating millions of photons, this model shows that only a tiny fraction of the photons from the surface can make it to space. Instead, 99+% hit the surface and are re-absorbed.

    A different and simple mathematical model matches fairly close to my more complex C++ model. Assume that an IR photon travels upwards 33 meters from the surface and hits a CO2 molecule. From that point there is a 50/50 chance it goes up 33 meters or down 33 meters. If it goes down then it hits the surface and is absorbed. Therefore, only half the energy from the surface goes up to 66 meters. From there, half will go up 66 meters and half will go down 66 meters and hit the surface. Only 25% of the energy from the surface makes it up to 132 meters above the surface. Then half will go up 132 meters and half will go down, and so on until space is reached at 100km. This halving rate prevents almost all the IR energy in CO2’s band from reaching space.

    Once the IR energy is absorbed by the ground, it will be re-emitted at some wave length per the earth’s blackbody radiation spectrum. About 30% of this energy is in the transparent atmospheric window (TAW). Since the speed of light is very fast and the distance traveled in the atmosphere is short, energy outside the TAW is quickly returned and absorbed. It does not take many cycles for that energy to be guaranteed to end up in the TAW and freely exit to space.

    I think much of the IR flux measured at the earth’s surface is the same energy cycling between the surface and the atmosphere. That little quantum of heat energy becomes an IR photon, rattles around, hits the ground and is absorbed. It becomes heat again, and the cycle repeats. The same quantum of energy has been converted to an IR photon and heat many times, until ultimately the photon is in the TAW and escapes to space. I think trying to estimate the impact of CO2 in terms of flux is not correct. We should be following a single photon around and see how long it takes to reach space as the amount of CO2 changes.

    Where am I mistaken, if I am?

    RHAPV (Reality has a persistent voice).

    • Where am I mistaken, if I am?

      In assuming that the only mode of IR energy exchange is radiative and ignoring the collisional deactivation of the excited CO2 molecules.

  56. Willis,

    I got the paper you referenced and read it, but I’m not at all unhappy with it. Everyone has recognized that differing rates of snow accumulation can affect the significance of measured 10Be production rates. The question is, do short-term irregularities mean that long-term 10Be measurements are not reliable? The authors of this paper recognize this and say “Further research is required to quantify this climate influence on 10Be over longer term records and at different sites.” I completely agree.

    So how do we test the relevance of long-term 10Be changes? The most direct way is to compare 10Be levels with radiocarbon levels of the same age. Production rates of radiocarbon, like 10Be, are governed by incoming cosmic radiation, so if the two are the same, then there is no problem with long-term 10Be levels. There is one such comparison in my book showing that the levels of 10Be and 14C are almost exactly coincident over a 2,000 year period, which is enough for me to trust 10Be levels as a measure of incoming cosmic radiation. Other time intervals can also be compared, but I think the result will be the same.

    Is this enough to convince you that the 10Be levels I cite in my book are useable?

    With best regards,

    Don

    • Don, I’ve never been overly happy with either the 10Be or the 14C measurements. My problem with them is that they do NOT have any 11-year cycles in them. Why would they record long-term cycles and not short-term cycles, particularly since the short-term cycles are much longer than the long-term cycles? Yes, there may be lags. But lags don’t destroy an 11-year cycle, they just smooth it and mush it forwards in time.

      Hang on, let me see, seems we discussed this in the past … OK, I find a few things. First, here’s Leif Svalgaard responding to … well … you:

      lsvalgaard April 12, 2014 at 7:58 am

      Don Easterbrook says:

      April 12, 2014 at 7:46 am
      The most significant difference between Cycles 5 and 6 and normal cycles is the low SSN, during which the sun’s magnetic field was presumably lower, accounting for the high 10Be atmospheric production rates. So it would appear that the critical issue here is not the range of SSN, but the fact that during Cycles 5 and 6, they never reach ‘normal’ levels because of a weaker solar magnetic field.

      First, the SSN during cycles 5 and 6 is very uncertain.
      .
      Second, the solar magnetic field causes a variation of UV flux and of the magnetic field in space impacting the Earth. The former we have monitored since 1722 and the latter since the 1830s. There is a good relation between the two so we can estimate with good accuracy the sun’s magnetic field back to at least the middle of the 18th century and cycles 5 and 6 were not unusual seen in perspective of the whole data set.
      .
      Third, there is evidence that the high 10Be is not due to the sun, but [probably – but there is discussion about this] to volcanoes and the climate itself. The 10Be in ice cores is not made in the atmosphere above Greenland or Antarctica but elsewhere at lower latitudes and must be transported by atmosphere circulation to the polar regions.

      and this:

      lsvalgaard April 12, 2014 at 8:11 am

      Don Easterbrook says:
      April 12, 2014 at 7:46 am

      Similar, consistent data exists for the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and 1880-1915 cool periods.

      For the 1880-1915 period where we have good data, the 10Be data ‘misbehaves’ and is not consistent with anything. A special workshop has recently been dedicated to this misbehavior http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf and the findings [to be published soon] is that the cosmic ray record is at fault and perhaps is not accurate at low solar activity.

      It “misbehaves” … not encouraging … and this (emphasis mine):

      lsvalgaard August 20, 2015 at 7:59 am

      Sun spots, incidentally, are not a good measure of solar activity. There are better, more precise measures, such as 14C, 10Be and 18O production.

      Actually not. The deposition of these radionuclide proxies are influenced by, among other things, climate itself. See e.g. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf and http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
      “We have compared the yearly production rates of 10 18 Be by cosmic rays in the Earths polar atmosphere over the last 50-70 years with 10Be measurements from two separate ice cores in Greenland. These ice cores provide measurements of the annual 10Be concentration and 10Be flux levels during this time. The scatter in the ice core yearly data vs. the production data is larger than the average solar 11 year production variations that are being measured. The cross correlation coefficients between the yearly 10Be production and the ice core 10Be measurements for this time period are less than 0.4 in all comparisons between ice core data and 10Be production, including 10Be concentrations, 10Be fluxes and in comparing the two separate ice core measurements. In fact, the cross correlation between the two ice core measurements, which should be measuring the same source, is the lowest of all, only ~0.2. These values for the correlation coefficient are all indicative of a “poor” correlation. The regression line slopes for the best fit lines between the 10Be production and the 10Be measurements used in the cross correlation analysis are all in the range 0.4-0.6. This is a particular problem for historical projections of solar activity based on ice core measurements which assume a 1:1 correspondence.
      We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based. We suggest new ice core measurements that might help in defining more clearly what these influences are and-if possible to correct for them”

      Finally, I discuss the problems with the 10Be measurements in a post called “Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Beryllium“.

      My best to you, my friend,

      w.

  57. I’m baffled by the plane on cover of Science News. Hadn’t the editors and illustrators seen what airliners looked like in 1975?

  58. Willis,

    I recall reading your post “Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Beryllium” in which you point out “If the 10Be deposition rate is claimed to be a proxy for the long-term small changes in overall levels of cosmic rays … why is there no sign in these datasets of it responding to the much larger 11-year change in cosmic rays?” I was just as puzzled as you were so decided to take a hard look at the long-term data. If 10Be is not a good proxy for incoming cosmic rays then long-term data should be all over the place with no consistent correlations with other cosmic ray proxies or climate.

    As you pointed out in your post, the numbers of cosmic rays (and presumably 10Be flux rates), vary inversely with 11-year sunspot cycles so why do we not see this in long-term records? How can we check the validity of long-term 10Be levels? Radiocarbon is produced in the upper atmosphere by incoming cosmic radiation and, like 10Be, production rates are a function of the amount of cosmic radiation. Comparison of 10Be and 14C levels over the past 2,000 years show almost exact coincidence, verifying the validity of 10Be as a measure of incoming cosmic radiation.

    Another line of evidence is the remarkable correspondence of 10Be and climate changes. I looked at every climate change (for which I could find data) over the past 800,000 and without exception, every climate change corresponded exactly with spikes in 10Be levels. The most astonishing were the exact coincidence of 10Be spikes with every extremely abrupt D/O climate change. This could not be true if 10Be levels were not valid. I’ll send you some of the data by email so you can see for yourself.

    Why the short-term 11-year cycle is apparently damped out in long-term measurements remains a mystery but does not invalid the long-term record.

    With all best regards,

    Don

    • First, the correspondence of 10Be and 14C may be because they both respond to the sun. Or, it may be because they both respond to the weather … and since we know for a fact that 10Be DOES respond to the weather, well …

      And for me, not finding the 11-year cycle in 10Be DOES invalidate the long-term record, until such time as we can explain it.

      I think we’ll have to let this one go, not going to convince each other.

      Pleasure chatting with you, as always,

      w.

      • Willis,

        Yes, fun to discuss these issues. I always learn things from our discussions. I think we approach science the same way.

        Best to you for a happy New Year.

        Don

  59. One of the most annoying doomcastings is that of the endless cries that the Maldives are disappearing as the sea level rises and swamps them. It was predicted that the Maldives are supposed to be nearly swamped by this year. SURPRISE! THE MALDIVES ARE STILL THERE! Lord give me strength but hurry (Forgive me Father for this language, but these loonies that are trying to mess up Your Father’s world are really starting to tick me off and then some.) I would love to speak to the people of the Maldives and ask them if all the hysteria of their atolls disappearing is making them look bad. The people of the Maldives need to speak out and call for the senseless hysteria of their atolls disappearing to stop!

  60. “For example, the Milankovich astronomical cycles that have correlated well with episodes of glaciation in the past say we should be in a full-blown “Ice Age” today. These cycles change the amount of sunlight in the northern hemisphere.”

    We can hold the Milankovich astronomical cycles responsible for: the 4 seasons, nothing less.

Comments are closed.