Climate Change – Ebb and Flow of the Tide – Part 3 of 3

Dr Kemm’s complete essay containing all three parts may be found here.

By Kelvin Kemm

The Pause Century

40. There has been essentially no global warming during the 21st Century. This reality has been called ‘The Pause’ by some, who claim that the real rise in temperature is actually going on, but that for some unexplained reason, has paused for a while.

There is debate about the ‘Pause,’ with some saying that there were gaps in data; the variations are too small to be statistically significant; etc. If this is so, how come climate change enthusiasts have been so utterly certain of their position and their figures for the past 20 years plus.

41. Initially ‘Global Warming’ was the only public phrase used. Then when ‘warming’ predictions did not occur, the term ‘climate change’ was introduced. So the late 2017 freezing conditions on the US East Coast were attributed by many groups to ‘Global Warming’ because they pointed out that the ‘warming’ was really causing the cold ‘climate change.’ (Note all the Al Gore global warming jokes and cartoons which started to appear in magazines, as cartoonists and journalists started to absorb the irony). Note: As a physicist I know that changed thermal balances in the atmosphere can lead to altered winds etc, which can lead to cooling etc. So there is some scientific basis to arguments that temperatures can go up and down. But frozen airports and other extreme weather is not climate change. It is ordinary extreme weather. Many years ago author Mark Twain, whose real name was Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835–1910), said: “Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.”

42. The concept of ‘Extreme Weather’ was also introduced by green extremists to add to the public fear factor. In fact; weather records (worldwide) show no evidence of any weather today that is different to the past couple of hundred years or more. The period over the last century of the highest incidence of hurricanes striking the US coast was the 1940’s. Large hurricanes striking the US coast over the last few years were not unusual, but by bad luck a couple of them happened to strike particularly highly populated areas, resulting in dramatic TV footage.

From 1876 to 1879 a terrible drought struck China, resulting in their worst famine ever, which killed over 10 million people. If that happened today it would be blamed on industrial CO2.

43. You cannot measure the ‘severity’ of a weather event by the magnitude of the insurance claim. Insurance claims have been used by Greenpeace et al, to try to ‘prove’ that unusual extreme weather is leading to greater devastation than before.

44. It is scientifically well-known that the Sun varies in intensity and in magnetic activity. This variation takes place on a Solar Cycle which is linked to the incidence of Sunspots. Sunspots have been regularly scientifically recorded since 1760. But they were observed regularly well before 1760 as well.

45. Sunspots were first formally observed through a telescope by Galileo and Thomas Harriot in December 1610. A year later in March 1611, Johannes Fabricus, a medical student in Leiden in the Netherlands discovered them independently and then some months later became the first to publish a scientific paper about them. This showed scientifically for the first time that there was variable activity on the Sun, because the Sunspots moved. As time passed, astronomers discovered that the Sunspots exhibited a cycle; and then in 1843 astronomer S H Schwabe was the first to describe the 11-year Sunspot Cycle that we know of today. However in ancient China, back in the 12th Century BC, observers mentioned black spots on the Sun, while the first written record of them in China occurred in 28 BC, but even the ancient Aztecs in South America had referred to them as well. So, solar magnetic activity has existed forever. From modern observatories and space probes we now know that solar activity is extremely violent.

46. There is other scientific evidence of long term solar radiation and magnetic variation around the planet, such as in geological structures and botanical evidence. The well-known Northern Lights (Aurora Borealis) over the North Pole, and the Southern lights (Aurora Australis) over the South Pole, occur as a result of electromagnetic particles ejected from the Sun.

47. Variations in the activity of the Sun produce a number of effects on earth, but we will here consider two of them. Heating, as a result of light and IR; and magnetic field variations.

48. The Sun brightens and dims slightly over a solar cycle. The resulting variation in heating and cooling of the Earth is not sufficient to account for the observed global warming. (of about 0.8C since the time of the Crimean War.). Some people like to discount the effect of the Sun, out of hand, due to this fact that the heat and light variation cannot account for temperature variations on the Earth.

49. It has been known for decades that vast amounts of charged particles and nuclear particles stream out from the Sun. This is known as the Solar Wind and it travels far past the Earth. The Earth is permanently bathed in this massive Solar Wind. It is well known that the Solar Wind affects radio communications on Earth and is known to be a potential danger to astronauts in space, if some large unexpected particle ejection takes place. It is also well known that the Solar Wind varies.

When electrically charged particles interact with magnetic fields, this action induces complex changes in the magnetic field which alters its strength; and deflects the particles.

50. The variation of the Sun’s magnetic field and the resulting variation of the Earth’s magnetic field, due to the interaction of the two, is significant. Mounting evidence is indicating that this appears to be sufficient to cause the observed global warming.

51. The total amount of Sunspot activity is known to vary over the 11-year solar cycle. It is also known that the number of Sunspots is an indicator of total magnetic activity. Sunspots are actually giant magnetic storms on the Sun. So now knowing Sunspot records to varying degrees of detail way back thousands of years, it is possible to generate records of solar magnetic influence on the Earth, over a long period of time.

What we discover is that the variations in the solar magnetic activity match up rather accurately with the observed temperature variation on the Earth. They clearly match up with the MWP and the LIA. There are also matches with the Roman Warming and the Minoan Warming periods. In fact the temperature of the Earth for the past few centuries matches the solar magnetic activity graph far better than does the CO2 concentration graph. Such scientific evidence should cause scientists and scientifically interested lay people to take serious note of this match with solar magnetic activity.

52. Continuing on from the scientific consideration of No.49: see the work of Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark on this matter. See also his book: The Chilling Stars.

Svensmark (and others) have shown that the variation of the penetration of cosmic rays (as in charged particles) through the Earth’s atmosphere is directly linked to the strength of the magnetic shield around the Earth. The Earth’s shield is linked to solar activity. Solar activity is indicated by Sunspot Number.

53. Svensmark has shown that cloud cover is linked to the incidence of Cosmic Rays coming from deep outer space. This is standard physics. Nucleation points in the atmosphere give rise to vapour condensation, such as the vapour trails seen behind high-flying aircraft. The aircraft engines emit charged particles and bits of pollution, such as soot, which act as the nucleation points.

Cosmic rays coming in through the atmosphere also create nucleation points in the atmosphere in a similar way. They also give rise to clouds.

54. There is a correlation between the MWP, LIA and the modern warming, which links to the solar activity far better than these temperature variations correlate to any concentration of atmospheric CO2.

There is therefore no logical scientific explanation to imagine that atmospheric CO2 is any more of a factor in observed global warming than is the Earth’s magnetic field variation induced by the Sun.

Yes, Look at the Sun

55. So why do the human-induced global warming proponents dismiss the Sun’s influence out of hand. Is this scientific?

56. There have been well-known manipulations in so-called ‘evidence’ for CO2 being the cause of global warming. For example; the case of the notorious ‘Hockey Stick Graph’ which the IPCC promoted to a great extent and then very quietly dropped. The Hockey Stick data later became the subject of criminal court proceedings in Canada. The whole thing continues in the courts with accusations that should never have to come about in real science.

The Hockey Stick had already been shown to have been incorrect when Al Gore still incorporated it in his movie: An Inconvenient Truth.

57. Another example is the ‘Climategate’ scandal when dishonest emails were uncovered. From this incident came the phrase ‘Hide the Decline’. When ‘hoped for’ global warming did not occur, and temperatures instead declined, certain scientists plotted how to ‘hide the decline’ to fool the public.

58. The observed conclusions arrived at from the work of Svensmark (and others) is that a weak magnetic shield around the Earth allows more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere. They induce more cloud. More cloud prevents the Sun’s natural heat from reaching the ground. This causes the Earth to be cooler, leading to global cooling.  A stronger magnetic shield leads to global warming, due to less cloud shield thus allowing the ground to absorb heat and so heat up the atmosphere generally.

The MWP, LIA, and modern warming (and lack of during the 21st Century) link well to Sunspot number and magnetic field variation.

Linkage to CO2 concentration is very poor and any actual causality cannot be shown. It is inferred because of the existence of a Greenhouse Effect (No.11), and the physics of IR windows (No.14).

59. Organisations such as Greenpeace and other similar ones have pushed hard to ‘save the planet,’ from an increase in CO2 emissions. This call is only meaningful if there is someone to blame. The blame has been directed at industry in general and the burning of fossil fuels in particular.

60. Since ‘saving the planet’ is a very honourable-sounding cause to strive for, it is easy to gain many supporters. It would be a very inconvenient truth to have to admit that observed global warming is entirely natural and is caused by the Sun. Also, that this has happened often before.

Even more awkward is that global warming periods have been associated with health, welfare and economic progress, whereas cooling periods (like the LIA) are associated with crop failures, disease, famine and economic failure. (see state of Europe during the LIA – well documented).

61. So now we have a huge political boulder rolling down the hill – save the planet – stop industrial CO2 production. Interestingly the same extreme green people say ‘stop nuclear power’ because their goal is to reduce all power production, to limit industrial growth – to save the planet, because industrial growth produces CO2.

62. Nuclear power now finds itself in the interesting position that it is (sort of) benefitting from the ‘reduce CO2’ mantra because nuclear produces no CO2. ‘Sort of’ because the CO2 proponents try to say that nuclear power does produce some CO2 when you factor in Uranium mining, fuel transportation and so on. This is a case of grasping at almost invisible straws. They do not then reference the CO2 produced in the production of solar panels and wind turbines. What about mining the silicon? What about the production of all the concrete for thousands of wind turbine foundations. How about the transport of thousands of huge wind turbines all over the world? It is silly to tally all this up for a CO2 argument. It is also silly to argue Uranium mining as a CO2 output for nuclear power.

63. I could go on a lot more, but the bottom line (lines) of all this is that some global warming occurred over the period from the Crimean War to now, but it also happened during the MWP. The link to CO2 at all is tenuous, let alone a link to anthropogenic CO2 being the cause.

The magnetic field of the Sun does alter cloud cover. Cloud cover does affect temperature. Temperature over past centuries links well to solar activity, so why discount the potential solar effect now.

The only answer is that it is politically expedient for certain organisations to have anthropogenic CO2 as ‘the fault’ because there is then someone to blame, tax and control.

A large scale popular consensus in favour of the theory of anthropogenic CO2 damaging the planet just does not exist amongst qualified people who count. See for example this letter to President Obama, of which I am a signatory:

At that time President-elect Obama said: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” (President-elect Barack Obama, 19 Nov 2008). This statement of his was just not true and it prompted the letter to Obama.

There are a number of other such letters and petitions in similar vein, which can be found after a bit of searching, but sadly they are mostly ignored by the popular media.

Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too. Voltaire (1694–1778)

So Where are we Wandering to?

The whole global warming and climate change social phenomenon going on around the world is an interesting occurrence in human psychology. It is a mixture of science; psychology; mysticism; politics; and group adherence. The challenge is to separate one from the other.

Without doubt, where we find ourselves now is that calls for CO2 reduction are a political force, whether the argument is scientifically valid or not. However, what is inescapable is that outcomes resulting from the climate change debate are having a massive economic and social impact on societies around the world. There are calls from the greens to drastically reduce air travel and to ban the eating of red meat, supposedly to ‘save the planet.’  Many of these moves seem to be aimed at the wealthier segments of society and so gain some sympathy, but frequently some of the hardest hit are those who work in these industries, and also people in developing societies in Africa and elsewhere.

People in developing societies are the ones who are told to not emulate ‘the foolish first world who use too much energy,’ and instead of using a tractor and metal plough to prepare the land for crops, to use an ox and a handmade wooden plough, because that is ‘living in harmony with nature.’ They are also told that such action avoids using polluting diesel fuel, and does not emit CO2 from the tractor exhaust. I have been present when European greens have told rural African women to carry water from the river in buckets and not to use diesel or electrical pumps, to save the CO2 emissions.

Nations which are less than 20% electrified are told to limit electricity expansion and to use intermittent solar and wind power to advance their economies into the 21st Century. Where is the morality in this?

Of course we need to protect our planet, it is our home.  But we need to address the real problems such as the problems of litter clogging rivers, irresponsible chemical emissions into waterways, the massive international rhino and elephant poaching operations which most green organisations seem to ignore, the massive fishing operations of some countries which plunder the coastal strips of other countries, so depriving the locals of their traditional source of income. In Somaliland some of these impoverished fishermen who found their fish stocks virtually wiped out by foreign fishing fleets, turned to piracy on the high seas instead. It is not moral for first world countries to curtail or block mining operations in African countries which export raw materials, but then to tell them to import computers and TVs from the first world.

It is not moral to induce developing countries and others to become dependent on energy from wind turbines which are supplied by only a few first world companies. Even more immoral is when this is done on the basis of claims of a scientific legitimacy and consensus when in fact this claim is highly suspect and in many cases demonstrably incorrect.

It is really bad when gangland tactics are used to attempt to silence opposing voices, to the point at which scientists and media editors are dismissed from their jobs for contradicting an alarmist climate political position on climate claims. For centuries the concept of the truth of genuine science and of true logical thought has been championed. It is time that those honourable objectives are given genuine stature. We need to get it right.


Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategist based in Pretoria, South Africa. He is CEO of Stratek Business Strategy Consultants. He does consultancy work in strategic development in energy, and also in other industrial and business systems.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 20, 2020 6:45 am

#53, Cloud cover is not enough. It’s #2.

Reply to  Zoe Phin
April 20, 2020 7:39 am

Sorry, I find it very hard to find the motivation to read any of the pros and cons of climate argument in the current shit storm.

If we do not get out of this insane self-destruction VERY quickly, the whole climate shitfest will be totally irrelevant one way or the other.

Reply to  Greg
April 20, 2020 8:18 am

But by maintaining the social distancing rules, Trump can’t continue having his famous 5000-person campaign rallies.

Therefore social distancing rules must stay in place.

You know, it’s for our own good.

Reply to  Greg
April 20, 2020 10:14 am

No, a relief is necessary in my opinion, at least temporary.
TV – Corona,
Newspaper – Corona,
what ever blog – Corona,

Earth is always turning around 24/7/12.
And while the climate hysteria will continue and will be related to Corona, climate is always a subject.

Reply to  Greg
April 20, 2020 11:27 am

I’m trying to decide whether it’s a shitfest or shitfeast.

Reply to  Greg
April 20, 2020 7:53 pm

“Greg April 20, 2020 at 7:39 am

the whole climate shitfest will be totally irrelevant one way or the other.”

Ever since alarmists started promoting CO₂ as the climate control, it became totally irrelevant.
An exact match to the the quality of science used by alarmists.

Reply to  Zoe Phin
April 20, 2020 8:44 am

Zoe, Geothermal ?…you are beyond mistaken, and pushing past delusional… one time I was involved with designing hockey and curling rink refrigeration systems. Even though insignificant, we would show 1/4 watt sq. meter in our calculations just so that deluded people like yourself would quit asking if we had allowed for “Geothermal heat”.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 20, 2020 9:40 am

But please read some science:

Your refrigaration system wouldn’t be necessary if not for geothermal.

You already assume that the atmosphere is what warms beyond what the sun alone can do, but you got it wrong.

Remember, the heat flux between your ears is 0 W/m^2, so according to you, you shouldn’t be able to melt ice cubes with your ears.

Reply to  Zoe Phin
April 20, 2020 9:48 am

Remember, the heat flux between your ears is 0 W/m^2, so according to you, you shouldn’t be able to melt ice cubes with your ears.
I never had, will have the intention to melt ice with my ears, I prefer to melt in a nice drink 😀

Reply to  Zoe Phin
April 20, 2020 10:23 am

* correction: would not be AS necessary.

Surface = Geo + Solar + “CMB”.

Reply to  Zoe Phin
April 21, 2020 6:42 am

Nothing gets warmer than what the largest input can cause. There is no adding temperature just because you turn temperature into W.

Reply to  Zoe Phin
April 20, 2020 6:04 pm

Zoe, you mean your science spoof site…Zoe and your alter ego Joe are quite a pair…..

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 20, 2020 10:17 am

You MacKenzie Hosers have been sucking on the Atmospheric-Bias Strange Brew for so long it has pickled your brains. Zoe is absolutely on point and so is Geologist James Kamis. https:/ Perhaps this reality is above your CV Grade.

Alan D. McIntire
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
April 20, 2020 3:43 pm

Check out google scholar on “Permian extinction”, “Triassic extinction”, and “Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Max”. All were presumably caused by heat released from thermal vents . Kamis was right, What DEFINITELY happened on a LARGE scale numerous times in the past could easily be happening on a smaller scale now,

Reply to  Alan D. McIntire
April 20, 2020 8:07 pm

The volcanic traps erupted for 100’s of thousands of years, and possibly as long as 2 million for the Permian extinction.

A few decades of nonexistent increases in eruptions makes it a bad joke.

Before refrigerators, people dug cellars that they used to keep food cool.
It’s downright hard for ground with temperatures in the 50F-60F to go warming the lower troposphere.

As soon as cold fronts swing through in during Fall/Winter and Spring, the surface layers chill down further.
So much so, that farmers keep an eye of soil temperatures. Corn and other crops planted in soils below 70F, fail.

Then, perhaps you can explain why a major section of the Ring of Fire underlays a significant portion of coastal Antarctica.
Those Antarctic glaciers and ice fields are unconvinced.

Steve Case
April 20, 2020 6:59 am

56. There have been well-known manipulations in so-called ‘evidence’ for CO2 being the cause of global warming.

Yes indeed, NASA’s GISTEMPGISTEMP changes the data in their Land Ocean Temperature Index every month. They just came out with the March 2020 edition over the weekend. So far in 2020 here are the number of changes made to the data with covers the period January 1880 to March 2020. That comes to 1683 monthly entries and 313 of them were altered in March. Here’s the number of changes made so far in 2020:

Number of Changes to GISSTEMP’s LOTI for 2020:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
319 240 313

This goes on month after month as a steady drone. Over time these changes add up. The link below is to a graph showing the changes made over the last ten years. Each bar shows how much the average temperature anomaly for each year since 1880 has been altered since 2010:

comment image

That the changes have been made is a matter of fact. Why they’ve been made is matter of opinion.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 21, 2020 6:46 am

If IR caused CO2 to warm then why is that not mentioned in specific heat tables, or in the NIST table for CO2, or part of the Shomate equation?

Bill Everett
April 20, 2020 7:06 am

This was most informative. More emphasis should be placed upon the minimal size of the CO2 presence in the atmosphere. At only 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere the ability of this tiny presence to influence global temperature and climate demands a high level scientific proof. Such proof has not been forthcoming. Showing that CO2 has the ability to retard the passage of infrared heat rays is not that proof. What percentage of infrared rays will such a porous tiny presence retard? CO2 fire extinguishers have demonstrated an ability to extinguish fires. But a CO2 fire extinguisher containing only 4/100 of one percent of CO2 will have no noticeable effect upon a fire.

Reply to  Bill Everett
April 20, 2020 7:16 am

You view CO2 as retarding outgoing IR by absorbing it, the wrong view. It is the RATE of IR emission to space by CO2 that produces the warming. Because that space emission occurs from the very high and cold atmosphere, it is lessen and Earth’s surface must warm to compensate.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  donb
April 20, 2020 8:27 am

“Because that space emission occurs from the very high and cold atmosphere . . .”

Seriously? Do you think that say, the top 1 km of the stratosphere contains a sufficient CO2 molecular density to block (then re-radiate) ALL radiation in CO2’s spectral absorption bands that is coming from lower in the atmosphere?

Do you think that this is true for even the top, say, 1 km of the troposphere with a CO2 mass concentration of .0410 percent of the total atmospheric density there, which is about one-third that at sea-level?

You will find that a large amount of CO2 radiation/re-radiation to deep space originates deep in the troposphere and passes directly to open space without being absorbed by the small cross-section of CO2 as integrated over the layer that you wish to characterize as “the very high and cold atmosphere.”

If you don’t want to do the math, just look at the video imaging of Earth done by the OCO-2 satellite, using radiation at CO2 emission wavelengths, at this link:
This video shows radiation variations associated with near-surface features, such as ocean-land boundaries and forests, so this radiation was obviously NOT all absorbed and then re-radiated from high in the atmosphere (noting the re-radiation is omni-directional and would therefore “smear” radiation variations coming from below). As the caption below the video states (capitalization emphasis added by me: “Each map represents a 16-day cycle and shows average concentrations of carbon dioxide BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE ATMOSPHERE AND EARTH’S SURFACE.

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
April 20, 2020 7:14 pm

IR radiation to space from CO2 occurs from a height (emission height) where the probability of space escape is greater than that for absorption by another CO2 molecule. For CO2-sensitive wavelengths that is the only way that IR escapes Earth.
This is clearly observed in satellite spectra of upwelling IR. Most of the 15u CO2 band emits from around minus 40 deg-C, with only smaller emission in the 15u band wings (say 16u) emitting at somewhat lower and warmer altitudes.
Check the satellite spectra DATA.
Water of course emits almost entirely from lower altitudes, because it condenses at higher altitude.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  donb
April 21, 2020 10:29 am

“IR radiation to space from CO2 occurs from a height (emission height) where the probability of space escape is greater than that for absorption by another CO2 molecule.”

Wow, that’s a very sharp cutoff . . . I wonder how the CO2 from below that 50-50 probability level knows that it should only radiate to other CO2 molecules since its radiation has less than a 50% probability of going directly to space.

Reply to  donb
April 20, 2020 5:19 pm

“Earth’s surface must warm to compensate”

According to the hypothesis of conservation of heat flow – which has no empirical evidence.

Reply to  Zoe Phin
April 20, 2020 6:36 pm

Zoe, steady state heat flow is standard stuff in first year engineering texts. You can read up on it there, where you will learn why there is conservation of heat flow at steady state.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 20, 2020 7:30 pm

And you will learn that hot will cool and cool will heat, until a steady state flow is established.

But nowhere will it say that hot must heat up due to cold in order to preserve initial heat flux.

(Heat flux approaches zero, but doesn’t get there – real)

But in climate junk science hot will heat cold half-way and the other half will force hot to get hotter.

(Heat flux remains same and forces hot to get hotter – fake)

Keep in mind that steady state flows only applies to materials that are NOT uniform and/or have lateral flux.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 22, 2020 7:38 am

Zoe Phin posted: “Keep in mind that steady state flows only applies to materials that are NOT uniform and/or have lateral flux.”

The true vacuum of space in not a material in any sense of the word, yet is has all-encompassing background radiation equivalent to about 3 K absolute temperature.

Any material object in space (e.g. a deep space scientific probe, such a Voyager) that is continuously generating power (say from a RTG or solar cells) will be continuously radiating thermal energy, hence providing an external heat flow, under what can scientifically be considered as “steady state” conditions.

Hence,one single material object, at “uniform temperature”, radiating a steady state flow of energy to a uniform immaterial object that is also at “uniform temperature”.

Martin Beck
April 20, 2020 7:07 am

The main problem we sceptics have, is getting the message across to the people who have already been brainwashed into believing that we are responsible for climate change,

They wont see any evidence to the contrary on MSM, and refuse to debate the subject. Try to raise the subject in the pub, or at social gatherings and you get shouted down, sworn at and told to shut up!

Reply to  Martin Beck
April 20, 2020 8:26 am

That’s why it is often referred to as a religion or faith.

When you raise the subject at social gatherings, you’ve insulted their faith. No wonder they get upset.

Even people who are atheist and criticize organized religions don’t realize that climate alarmism is just another religion. I know this first hand, I used to be one of them.

Reply to  Martin Beck
April 20, 2020 2:32 pm

As Mark Twain said, “It’s easier to fool someone than convince them they’ve been fooled!”

April 20, 2020 7:11 am

Some 90% of Earth’s near-surface heat resides in the oceans, and about half of incoming solar radiation is deposited into the oceans. Oceans transfer that heat to the atmosphere via direct radiation and through water evaporation. The temperature of the ocean surface controls the rate of that atmospheric transfer, and the ocean surface temperature is sensitive to variations in deep mixing currents –e.g. el Ninos, AMO.
Thus, variations in global atmospheric temperature (e.g., the “Pause”) can partially depend on what the ocean is doing.

John Garrett
April 20, 2020 7:27 am

× 1,000,000

Thank you, Dr. Klemm, for Part 3 (and Parts 1 and 2) of this very useful compilation.

It is work such as this that informs many of us of the extent of the ginormous scientific fraud that has been used to bamboozle the public.

April 20, 2020 7:33 am

“There has been essentially no global warming during the 21st Century. This reality has been called ‘The Pause’ by some, who claim that the real rise in temperature is actually going on, but that for some unexplained reason, has paused for a while.”

That was until 2014, I thought.
Are we still in a pause?
The UAH data show warming.
The pause was “explained” by climate science in terms of ENSO and also in terms of ocean heat content although the real answer maybe that we don’t really know.
Pls see

Ulric Lyons
April 20, 2020 7:35 am

Weaker solar wind drives warmer ocean phases via negative NAO/AO which drives a reduction in low cloud cover. Increased El Nino conditions and a warm AMO are normal during centennial solar minima, warmer SST’s reduce low cloud cover, but with increases in the Arctic. Svensmark’s ideas are irrational and contrary to real world observations of low cloud cover changes.

April 20, 2020 7:36 am

“Initially ‘Global Warming’ was the only public phrase used. Then when ‘warming’ predictions did not occur, the term ‘climate change’ was introduced. ”

This statement is not true
Pls see

David A
Reply to  chaamjamal
April 20, 2020 8:29 am

Nonsense, and next time please quote the cogent section in a long article. That fact that the term climate change was also used more rarely is irrelevant to the theory being called global warming. ( In popular literature this was the push by a very large margin.) Indeed the climate change in most all of the old literature was always as a result of global warming. As such we needed a global increase in droughts floods hurricanes, SLR etc… All of which failed to manifest! The ” theory” has abandoned global warming, and has abandoned global increases in droughts floods, tornadoes and hurricanes, and now focuses on any Extreme weather as proof of climate change.
The article you linked is rudimentary and misinformed.

April 20, 2020 7:41 am

From 1876 to 1879 a terrible drought struck China, resulting in their worst famine ever, which killed over 10 million people. If that happened today it would be blamed on industrial CO2.

That was one of many in the recorded climate history of China called the Fang Zhi

Pls see

April 20, 2020 7:46 am

1 – re. solar activity during the MWP, etc. How solid is the evidence? There are many proxies related to the MWP climate. How many proxies are there related to solar activity?

2 – For some people the motivation to push CAGW is as an excuse for de-industrialization. If the adoption of more nuclear power thwarts that, will CAGW vanish because it no longer serves a political purpose?

3 – Will society’s trust of experts be further fatally eroded as a result of the bungled response to coronavirus? Will people learn to distinguish between the different types of expert? ie. economists are wrong more often than right but engineers, properly practicing within the scope of their practice, are almost never wrong.

Farmer Ch E retired
April 20, 2020 8:22 am

Lets go back to the good old days of farming to support a vegan diet!
comment image

Martin Cropp
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
April 21, 2020 11:19 am

A twenty horsepower unit. Still low on torque, unless Mr Ed is one of them.
Lockdown humour.

Ron Long
April 20, 2020 8:24 am

Dr. Kelvin, a few comments. Mark Twain was the prototype for what we now call “snarky troll”, jsut that he was smarter than most and fond of writing things down. The observations that there are no weather/climate events currently that have not existed in the past is something we geologists think of as “Uniformatarianism”, and it works like I have previously mentioned, when I take geologists to the field in Argentina to see the Neuquen Basin stratigraphy I stop at a recent river crossing exhibiting a flood sequence, dead cows, trees, sand bars, ripples, etc, and then go into the Cretaceous and show them the exact same event, just dinosaurs instead of cows. The effect of the earths magnetic field is very important, and the Pierre Auger Observatory here in the Malargüe region monitors cosmic ray impacts. The Observatory, one of two that exist in the world, especially monitors high-energy cosmic rays, their energy starts at 1×10 to 19th power electron volts (enough energy to send a golf ball about 300 meters), and when they strike the atmosphere they produce a series of tremendous cascading events, from bright photon flashes, to secondary sub-atomic particles, to some ionizing radiation streams. So, cosmic rays, lacking protection of a strong magnetic field, which varies tremendously here on earth, coordinated with the Sun, can wreck havoc on the atmosphere. Interesting posting, stay sane and safe.

April 20, 2020 8:43 am

The word “irradiance” as in TSI doesn’t appear in this article.

48. The Sun brightens and dims slightly over a solar cycle. The resulting variation in heating and cooling of the Earth is not sufficient to account for the observed global warming. (of about 0.8C since the time of the Crimean War.). Some people like to discount the effect of the Sun, out of hand, due to this fact that the heat and light variation cannot account for temperature variations on the Earth.

He says nothing about it other than stating some people dismiss it out of hand (TSI), so he behaves as they do, without further explanation, without even attempting a dismissal before rolling right into what is 100% wrong – Svensmark’s theory.

The clouds Svensmark claims for cosmic rays are instead from the tropics. UAH LT6.0 rose during the rise of cosmic rays into and through this solar minimum, while Nino3.4 has been oscillating around 0.5C, HadSST3 peaked again. The cosmic rays didn’t cool the NH during winter. It was from lack of sunshine, and a stronger than usual polar vortex due to the long term low TSI – the cold and ice grew from growing absence of insolation. Every cloudless day this winter at 45N was frigid cold. Clouds don’t cause cold or grow ice. More clouds are associated with higher tropical temperatures, warmth, not cold.

comment image

comment image

This author’s points are wrong after #48 that are predicated on Svensmark’s theory.

The cause of the pause was low TSI from 2004-2011; the 2015/16 El Nino by high TSI:

comment image

Click/hover my name for current solar/geomagnetic data to see what charged particles are doing now.

Reply to  Bob Weber
April 20, 2020 9:56 am

Clouds don’t cause cold or grow sea ice.

Our inland freshwater lake freezes every year from low insolation, irrespective of clouds.

Lack of clouds is important to NH land temperature April-October, affecting UVI positively.

The current app image linked to my name has the USA 58-station average UV index for today at 6.3 for the UVI map linked below. If you’ve noticed the weather news lately it’s been hot in Florida with some new records set. This is happening because there’ve been fewer clouds over Florida, allowing more sunshine in, ie higher insolation to the ground:

comment image

From yesterday, when the US UVI average was 5.8, the hottest areas in the southern US were where the sunshine was the strongest per the UVI. The heat index followed the sun also here:

comment image

The Pacific tropics were pretty clear of clouds in the image, as the most recent evaporation pulse moved on and is now exiting the eastern USA. This will allow more absorbed sunshine, warming.

The most important thing to know about this for Svensmark fans is the fact that cosmic rays don’t reach the tropics where the clouds mainly originate, meaning cosmic rays can have nothing directly to do with clouds or lack of clouds from the tropics, facts that invalidate the Svensmark theory.

comment image

Reply to  Bob Weber
April 20, 2020 10:08 am

Clouds protect from cooling during night, and protect from heating reducing sunshine during days.
Cloudless days show increasing sunshine hours over the day forcing increasing temperatures and higher global radiation.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 20, 2020 10:39 am

“. . . what is 100% wrong – Svensmark’s theory”

Svensmark’s theory may only be 97% wrong.

April 20, 2020 10:05 am

Thank you Dr. Kemm for your article. Related papers:

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020

by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 1, 2019

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., September 1, 2019

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 19, 2019

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 4, 2019

by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019

John Tillman
April 20, 2020 10:57 am

Mark Twain, a schoolchild, Caroline B. Le Row, Robert Heinlein, Andrew John Herbertson or Anonymous?

John Tillman
April 20, 2020 11:05 am

Climatic effects from solar variation in the UV spectrum affecting ozone have been supported by observations:

Solar ultraviolet radiation and ozone depletion-driven climate change: effects on terrestrial ecosystems.

UV varies much more than TSI.

Reply to  John Tillman
April 20, 2020 1:34 pm

That’s why we have TCI now, the UV impact on thermosphere, published day at (Thermosphere Climat Index)

M Courtney
April 20, 2020 2:56 pm

57. Another example is the ‘Climategate’ scandal when dishonest emails were uncovered. From this incident came the phrase ‘Hide the Decline’. When ‘hoped for’ global warming did not occur, and temperatures instead declined, certain scientists plotted how to ‘hide the decline’ to fool the public.

When the proxy reached the measured era the proxy should have followed the thermometers upwards. But it didn’t.
The proxy was a measurement of pine cones, as I recall.
So an honest scientist would accept that this proxy was not appropriate and wouldn’t use it to estimate past temperatures.
The Climategate scandal was that the proxy declined when the thermometers went up but, instead of binning the proxy, they kept the flat bit and spliced on the thermometers for the declining bit – instead of acknowledging that the flat bit was rubbish too.

It had nothing to do with any ‘hoped for’ global warming that did not occur. It was far worse than that; they weren’t caught out by events.

They knew from the beginning that it was not appropriate and still used the proxy anyway.

Reply to  M Courtney
April 20, 2020 6:39 pm

Pine cones ? You gotta go back and read that again. Tree Rings sounds better.

April 20, 2020 4:29 pm

The graph of top-of-atmosphere radiation flux at helps explain why CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate.

The water vapor content of the atmosphere declines from an average of about 10,000 ppmv at ground level to about 32 ppmv at the tropopause. Combining this with the pressure decline results in a population gradient of WV molecules of about 1200 to one from ground level to the troposphere.

With this huge population gradient, omnidirectional radiation emitted by WV molecules travels farther away from earth than towards earth before encountering another WV molecule. This results in the net radiation flux being away from earth.

Given the lapse rate for the standard atmosphere, the black body curves are also altitude curves. This shows that much of the TOA radiation from WV molecules comes from quite deep in the atmosphere. For example, radiation in the wavenumber range of 500/cm to 600/cm is radiated from WV molecules in the altitude range of only about 1.5 to 5.5 km.

Thermal conduction in the atmosphere occurs as a result of molecules bouncing off each other. Average time between bounces of a molecule at STP is less than a nanosecond. When a ghg molecule absorbs a photon it does not emit one immediately. The delay, called the relaxation time is a few microseconds. Therefore, radiation energy absorbed by a ghg molecule is shared with surrounding molecules; nearly all of which are not ghg. The process of radiation energy being absorbed by ghg and shared with surrounding molecules is called thermalization. When ghg emit photons, their energy is replenished by conduction from surrounding molecules, i.e. reverse-thermalization. Thermalization and reverse-thermalization take place continuously throughout the atmosphere.

The energy missing from below the tropopause centered on 667/cm has to be redirected to other ghg. This is made possible by thermalization. The energy from the ‘ditch’ is redirected to WV molecules which radiate it to space.

The small warming from CO2 near ground level is compensated for by enhanced cooling of added CO2 in the stratosphere. This is quantified in Section 3 of

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 21, 2020 3:13 pm

Oops. In second paragraph, ‘to the troposphere’ should be ‘to the top of the troposphere’.

April 20, 2020 9:39 pm

In the late 20th century, Australia’s electricity supply was reliable and cheap thanks to some of the best coal reserves anywhere. Now it is neither.

This extra expenditure bought us some international backslapping for those in government and precious little else. Meanwhile, our capacity to enable the poorer citizens of places such as India to access cheap and reliable power is also hamstrung.

These political developments are, in no way, progressive.

April 21, 2020 5:03 am

They’re busy shifting the goalposts again as the plant food dooming withers on the vine but it’s the same old Marxism sprayed with some euphemistic deodorant-

‘Setting this report apart from previous studies are knowledge, evidence, and policy options provided to decision-makers. Professor Watson, a previous chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is optimistic that despite the ominous picture, it is not too late to make a difference.
“Through ‘transformative change’, nature can still be conserved, restored and used sustainably––this is also key to meeting most other global goals. By transformative change, we mean a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals, and values,” he adds.’—inside-earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event/ss-BB12WAWv

B9ill Everett
April 21, 2020 10:03 am

I cannot begin to keep up with the science discussed in these comments, however, I fail to see where a heavier-than-air gas like CO2 would have any but the tiniest presence at high altitudes. Since the presence close to the Earth’s surface is itself tiny the high altitude presence would appear to be of no consequence.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights