Book Review by Kip Hansen — 12 November 2022
Dr. Javier Vinós is a lab-based biologist by training and profession, studying things neither you nor I have ever heard of and to which we have never given a single second of thought. Topics such as: “A G Protein-Coupled Receptor Phosphatase Required for Rhodopsin Function”; “Notch down-regulation by endocytosis is essential for pigment cell determination and survival in the Drosophila retina”; “Autophosphorylating protein kinase activity in titin-like arthropod projectin” and “Signals in the φ29 DNA-terminal protein template for the initiation of phage φ29 DNA replication”.
But Life intervened in Javier’s academic and intellectual path, as he explains in the preface of his new book:
“Towards the end of the summer of 2014, I walked alone the “Camino de Santiago” (Way of Saint James) from the Pyrenees to Santiago de Compostela, near the Atlantic coast. It is an ancient pilgrimage route that had its heyday during the Medieval Warm Period and decayed with the Black Plague, but has seen a modern revival as a spiritual and cultural European route that is now an UNESCO World Heritage Site. I walked 750 km [466 miles] in a month visiting from the Atapuerca archaeological site, famous for its Homo antecessor and neanderthalensis remains, to the medieval architecture of northern Spain. I had a lot to think after the recent death of my parents in less than two years. What kind of world are we leaving to our children and their children? In the long days at “El Camino” I had plenty of time to deeply think about the passage of time and the changing of the world and its people through prehistory and history. A testimony I could see before my eyes. As a biologist (of the laboratory type) I was familiar with the effects of global warming. Not only I can remember the colder winters of my childhood in the early 1970s, I can also attest to the lengthening of the growing season, the earlier appearance of insects over the years, or the recent decision by some migratory birds to remain in Spain through the winter instead of migrating to Africa.”
“One of my decisions was to start a blog to explore the risks of global warming in the fall of 2014. It is easier to research and learn things when one has to explain them to others. As a scientist, when I need information, I don’t rely on second-hand opinions. I go directly to the evidence and the scientific literature. But in my carefully laid out plan of warning the world about the dangers of climate change I found a problem. The evidence that the planet was warming was clear (I already knew that), although no warming had taken place for over a decade. The evidence that we have greatly increased the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide was clear (I also knew that). What wasn’t clear at all was the evidence that the carbon dioxide was causing the warming. Clearly the warming had started long before the fast increase in carbon dioxide.”
As a result, Dr. Vinós launched himself into serious research of climate science, its past, its present, and ideas about its future. He has produced a prodigious book, titled: “Climate of the Past, Present and Future — A Scientific Debate”, now in its second edition. Also available elsewhere: Barnes and Noble (hardcover and eBook), Google Books (eBook), Koko (eBook) and many more.
EVEN BETTER: By special arrangement with the author, the complete book is available from the WUWT server as a .pdf file, absolutely free.
This book has been a long time coming. Initially featured at Dr. Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc., where the nucleus that was to grow into this book was presented in a ten part series which started with “Nature Unbound I: The Glacial Cycle“ in October of 2016. Dr. Curry has written the foreword for the book which concludes with this:
“After reading this book, I am perhaps more concerned about a coming ice age in several thousand years time than I am about the possibility of catastrophic warming from greenhouse gas emissions on the timescale of the 21st century. If Vinós’ analysis is correct, thinking that we can control the Earth’s climate by reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be the greatest folly of the 21st century. This is a debate that we need to have.”
Dr. Vinós covers the following topics, in what sometimes seems to be excruciating detail. He is a scientist’s scientist, and leaves no loose ends in his exploration and explanation of:
– Milankovitch cycles
– abrupt glacial (Dansgaard-Oeschger) events
– Holocene climate variability
– the 1500-year cycle
– solar activity
– volcanic eruptions
– greenhouse gases
– energy transport
– and more….
If you want to come to a better understanding of what has caused the past climate of Earth and what is causing the climate as it is today; if you want to come to a better understanding of the complex and complicated factors that have produced and continue to produce our ever-changing climate, then this is the book for you.
This is not a book to take with you to Florida and read on a warm tropical day in the Sun – it is not a breezy easy read. It is a book of science and written as one, full of figures and illustrations with careful explanations. The book is conveniently divided into chapters by topic with a complete list of references at the end of each chapter.
Reading this book will not supply all of the answers to the mysteries of the climate, but it will get you far closer to the truth – the scientific answers to the best of our current knowledge — free of the politics of “Climate Science”. You will feel much more well educated regardless of your starting point.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
I have been tardy in writing this review but excuse myself based on my self-enforced requirement that I read every word, critically view every illustration and figure, check references carefully and, most importantly, personally understand what the author has written. With the breadth of this book, it was not a quick task.
Anthony Watts, the owner of this blog, has graciously given Dr. Vinós permission to offer free .pdf file copies of this book as downloads from this site. Click here to download.
Better yet, buy an eBook version from any of the suppliers linked in the essay – the price is right and “the laborer is worthy of his wages”.
# # # # #
What a great resource! Many thanks for making it available to us all. Fig. 4.4 is particularly interesting/worrying…just when will the purple curve trend upwards? A sober warning for us all. The Holocene holds our future in its hands.
Typo: ” Dr. Curry has written the forward for the book “
Should be “forword”.
Typo after typo!
Foreword!
roha ==> Thanks as always to a careful detailed reader….the world needs more like you.
Thank you for the book! Look forward to read it in the next couple of days.
Is this the same Javier who has been contributing here recently?
Yes. I’ve been contributing to WUWT since 2015. My first article at WUWT was a cartoon I sent to Anthony which was published in September 2016:
Earth’s obliquity and temperature over the last 20,000 years
I’ve contributed about 20 articles to WUWT.
Skimmed the free download, then bought the Kindle version. Solid effort by Javier, excellent graphics.
Thank you.
The book is also available in Kindle as well, with all the bells & whistles enabled, for a ridiculously low price of $2.99! Here’s the link:
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Past-Present-Future-scientific-ebook/dp/B0BCF5BLQ5
It’s 740 pages folks! 😳
Yes, it is a ridiculously low price for the amount of effort that went into it.
Great book by Javier.
One of my favourite passages –
In the words of British Statistician George Box: “Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.” ( Box and Draper,1987,pg.74).
The book by Javier is excellent and exposes much of the obfuscation of the “settled science”.
A good example is on Climate Change Attribution-
“While science is firmly bedded in uncertainty, policy making demands certainty….”
Thus now in Australia the consensus has moved from a claimed 97% consensus to a claimed 100% consensus.” Unanimous”was the latest claim of the Senate Environment etc. Committee.
It is the reason why the Garnaut Review (2011) said the consensus had moved from the civil standard of the balance of probabilities to the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
No national policy can go forward on the basis of the balance of probability.
Too much room for doubt and none is allowed.
Hi Javier and congratulations on this fine piece of work. I’ve enjoyed your posts here.
I generally agree with your conclusions, if I have interpreted them correctly:
Earth’s observed warming and cooling cycles are primarily naturally-driven.
Climate is relatively INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2.
I will withhold further comments until I’ve spent more time on it.
Best regards, Allan MacRae in Calgary
Hi Javier,
You did not discuss this issue – maybe you think it is unimportant – I think it is at least interesting:
Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
The integral of dCO2/dT is CO2 change, and CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales (MacRae 2008).
In the modern data record: dCO2/dt vs UAH LT Temperature (MacRae, January 2008)
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly (MacRae, now – 26Aug2022)
SST is warming according to this data.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1
dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, Detrended (MacRae, now 26Aug2022)
Detrended to show the close correlation.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1/detrend:0.25
My Jan2008 paper shows the close correlation of the rate-of-change dCO2/dt vs Lower Tropospheric temperature T.
The integral of dCO2/dt is CO2 change, which lags temperature change by approximately 9 months in modern data.
I thought I had discovered something new when I discovered this close correlation of dCO2/dt vs T in December 2007 and published in January 2008.
I later learned that Kuo et al had published this observation in Nature (1990) and Humlum et al published it again in 2013 – and we were all carefully ignored by the warmists.
This observation is a strong disproof of the CO2-drives-dangerous- warming mantra – because the future cannot cause the past. [Cart-before-horse!]
See CorrectPredictions.ca for references.
I also determined why the lag is ~9 months in this paper:
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
“Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past
6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).
7a. Why does the lag of atmospheric CO2 changes after temperature changes equal ~9 months?
The reality is that increasing atmospheric CO2 is probably driven by both natural and humanmade causes but it is not dangerous and is highly beneficial due to increased plant and crop growth.
___________________________
MY FRIEND’S REPLY FOLLOWS IN ITALICS, WITH MY COMMENTS IN PLAIN TEXT:
I agree that there is causation both ways between atmospheric temperature and CO2 levels, due to changes in atmospheric temperature affecting the temperature of the ocean mixed layer, which alters the solubility of CO2 in it and hence causes the ocean to absorb or emit CO2.
I agree.
There is also an indirect causative link via changes in atmospheric temperature affecting the growth of vegetation.
I agree.
Nonetheless, natural fluctuations in temperature cannot themselves drive a long term trend in CO2.
Probably true, and the following is interesting; maybe not 100% correct, but interesting:
This paper by Ed Berry is the leading edge of the science. Unlike the IPCC’s models, it is consistent with the observation that CO2 changes lag temperature changes (Kuo 1990, MacRae 2008, Humlum 2013). Ed concludes that the majority of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is in fact natural, not human-made – another argument against the IPCC’s blatant climate fraud.
Some of the smartest people I know believe that Ed Berry is essentially correct. I am confident that “The future cannot cause the past” (MacRae, 2008).
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
…
THE IMPACT OF HUMAN CO2 ON ATMOSPHERIC CO2 – SCC (klimarealistene.com)
Dr Edwin X Berry, December 14, 2021
Abstract
A basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 and human CO2 dominated the CO2 increase. IPCC’s basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. But human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate, or e-time. The 14CO2 e-time, derived from δ14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12CO2 e-time is about 4 years and IPCC’s carbon cycle uses 3.5 years. A new physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, using IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data, it calculates human carbon has added only 33 [24-48] ppmv to the atmosphere as of 2020, which means natural carbon has added 100 ppmv. The physics model calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of 2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv in 2100. After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12CO2 increased, which suggests a natural source dominates the 12CO2 increase.
I suppose that with slightly different input assumptions, Ed’s results could be significantly different – more humanmade CO2, less natural.
Radiative physics theory is very solid and there is no point in arguing that increasing CO2 concentration doesn’t cause warming…
Here I may disagree, citing significance.
However, since atmospheric CO2 changes LAG atmospheric temperature changes by ~9 months in the modern data record (Kuo 1990, MacRae 2008, Humlum 2013), ECS may in fact be non-existent.
The above difference I attribute to phenomena associated with scale-up, from molecular scale to Earth scale, which is one very large scale-up, during which a lot of unexpected things can happen.
A further argument for “ECS approximately equals zero” is the observation that Earth has cooled several times in recent past, even as fossil-fuel emissions increased – for example from ~1940 to 1977 and from ~Feb2016 to present.
or that the upwards trend in CO2 concentration is not due to human emissions disturbing the previous balance between non-human sources and sinks. Making such arguments merely destroys the credibility of the person making them and of other, valid, arguments by that person.
Again – see Ed Berry if you wish – But my argument does not rely on Ed’s hypothesis; it relies on the observation that ECS (or TCS or just CS) must be close to zero, and increasing atmospheric CO2 will not drive significant, let alone dangerous, global warming.
I do agree that CO2 warming is very unlikely to be dangerous, over the next century or two at least,
I agree, and say further that humanmade CO2 will never be dangerous.
and that increasing CO2 levels have some benefits, although there must come a point where the disadvantages of higher CO2 and higher temperature outweigh the advantages.
I doubt the latter will ever happen – ECS is too small and CO2 levels have been hugely higher in the distant past with no apparent harm to life.
My co-authors and I wrote in 2002: “The alleged warming crisis does not exist.” I stand by that statement.
___________________________
Way over limit Alan…please don’t make me crack down again.
Sorry you are upset Charles. I’m almost “done” with the Climate scam.
This was a much-abbreviated conversation with a man who, like Javier, is one of the more competent individuals on the planet. I’ve been pondering this observation since my publication in Jan2008 and think that it disproves the false, fraudulent CAGW narrative, yet has been generally ignored since 1990 (Kuo et al).
I’m not upset. I’m tired of your spammy pontificating.
When you measure dCO2/dT you are basically measuring the CO2 flux between the biosphere (algae, phytoplankton, and plants) and the atmosphere. This flux obviously responds to temperature, but it does not tell you anything about climate.
This was first reported as a response of atmospheric CO2 to ENSO by Bacastow, a collaborator of Charles Keeling in 1976:
Bacastow, R.B., 1976. Modulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the Southern Oscillation. Nature, 261(5556), pp.116-118.
Thank you Javier for this interesting reference. Please note the last sentence in the Abstract – bolded below:
I agree that the annual ‘seasonal sawtooth” in atmospheric CO2, which is greatest at Barrow AK and least at the South Pole, is primarily driven by the biosphere. In my above equations, I have tried to
eliminatemoderate that annual biosphere variable by using 12-month averages, leaving a result that I think is primarily driven by the temperature aspects of Henry’s Law, the variable solubility of CO2 with the Sea Surface Temperature (SST). I think that is what Bacastow stated below:“The connection, if present, indicates that a principal cause of the variation may be a change in the rate of removal of CO2 by the oceans.”
… and that is also what I am saying above.
… and since the only measurable observation is that atmospheric CO2 changes lag SST changes AND lag atmospheric temperature changes, I conclude that Climate Sensitivity (CS) to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low or may not even exist in measurable physical reality…
,,, and while that does not tell you anything about climate, it does tell you that the alleged fossil-fuel-driven CAGW (aka “Climate”) crisis does not exist.
Best regards, Allan MacRae
MODULATION OF ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE BY THE SOUTHERN OSCILLATION
R. B. Bacastow Published: 13 May 1976
Nature volume 261, pages 116–118 (1976)
Abstract
ATMOSPHERIC CO2 records for the South Pole and Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, show a seasonal variation, presumably arising from the uptake and release of CO2 by vegetation, and a long term increase, almost certainly caused by combustion of fossil fuel. The increase is much greater in some years than in others1,2. Changes in the rate of fossil fuel combustion are not likely to be the cause of the variation in yearly increase, as combustion has increased very steadily3. I present here evidence that the variation is connected to the Southern Oscillation, a large scale atmospheric and hydrospheric fluctuation with an irregular period of 1–5 yr (ref. 4). The connection, if present, indicates that a principal cause of the variation may be a change in the rate of removal of CO2 by the oceans.
SUMMARY
Here is the fatal flaw that most people on BOTH sides of the climate debate make:
“Radiative physics theory is very solid and there is no point in arguing that increasing CO2 concentration doesn’t cause warming…”
Too many people are committed to this flawed observation, which is true at molecular scale but is disproved by observations at Earth scale.
In engineering we often note that observations that work at lab scale do NOT work at larger scales, due to a problem called “scale-up”. That is why we often model physical processes at ever-larger scales before we “go commercial”.
In scale-up of radiative physics from molecular scale to Earth scale, which is one huge scale-up, unexpected things happen.
Since atmospheric CO2 changes LAG atmospheric temperature changes by ~~9 months in the modern data record (Kuo 1990, MacRae 2008, Humlum 2013), the notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes significant global warming is INconsistent with observations and is thus disproved – that flawed notion alleges that the future is causing the past. In fact, climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is probably near-zero or non-existent.
Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. That is the only true observation we can see in the modern data record.
The integral of dCO2/dT is CO2 change, and CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales (MacRae 2008).
This does not mean that some or most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is cause by fossil fuels – it does mean that there is NO real climate crisis.
In the modern data record: dCO2/dt vs UAH LT Temperature (MacRae, January 2008)
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
I welcome counter-arguments – just do not start with “We KNOW that increasing CO2 causes dangerous global warming.” You may think that, but you do NOT know that – that is a false statement.
One event I did not see mentioned is my favorite historical fact. The battle of Thermopyle took place at a narrow mountain pass well documented in history. On one side was the mountain, on the other side was the ocean. The narrow pass allowed King Leonidas to hold back the massive Persian Army with only a small contingency of men dramatized in movies such as 300. Today that location is 2km inland as well above sea level. This is strong evidence that sea levels were much higher in 480 BC, and the global climate was much warmer. There is also a documentary titled “How Climate Made History.” it spends 6 hours documenting how extreme the climate has been during the Holocene, and how climate change ended the Old Kingdom Egypt, Bronze Age, and caused revolutions during the Little Ice Age, and other, and then in the very last 5 minutes tells you to ignore all the Climate History and believe that today’s relatively stable climate is actually extreme and caused by man.
You are ignoring the affect of glacial rebound.
I imagine the dynamics of glacial rebound as complex, but Greece wasn’t anywhere near the ice sheets at the last maximum. One would think that if Greece wasn’t covered, then it couldn’t rebound much.
While it is clear that there was a Holocene high stand in sea level, from which sea level decreased until the LIA, local data varies a lot due to isostatic and subsidence phenomena. Just across the Mediterranean, the city of Heracleion submerged.
CO2isLife ==> The major error of modern sea level science is ignoring that the surface of the Earth is elastic and moves up and down — unevenly — even on an annual scale. Only in the present, the last 5 years or so, have major efforts been underway to place Continouously Operating GPS References Stations — CORS — on the same structures as regionally important tide gauges so that it can be determined how much and in what direction the surface of the sea is moving and how much the structure (dock, pier, land to which it is attached) is moving.
I bought the hardcover book and find it fascinating. I’ve waited a long time to find a book such as Javier’s. It is the most comprehensive overview of climate change I have ever seen. It covers everything from paleo-climatology to ice age cycles to modern day theories. Most importantly, it is based on observational data — and not climate alarmism. This book excels at what science should be — a close examination of data from which logical explanations are developed. Through numerous climate change examples, and supported by detailed diagrams, Javier has integrated old and new climate change theories into one inclusive description of how earth’s natural heat transfer processes explain climate change. He also clearly explains how and why the sun is the primary climate change driver.
Thank you Javier, I am adding this book to my Christmas list that family demand I give them every year.
Greta’s book will not feature despite her life long study of nothing.
“How DARE you!!!”
“But in my carefully laid out plan of warning the world about the dangers of climate change I found a problem.
…
What wasn’t clear at all was the evidence that the carbon dioxide was causing the warming.”
________________________________
Implicit in those to statements is Climate change i.e., warming is dangerous.
I’m not going to read the book as Kip advertises it as “not a breezy read” But I might try to read it if I had some confidence that Dr. Vinós actually did lay out the dangers of climate change. You see, it isn’t the issue that the world is warmer, the issue is weather a warmer world is a problem or not? After all:
1. Warmer weather is not a problem.
2. More rain is not a problem.
3. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
4. More arable land is not a problem.
5. A greener earth is not a problem.
Besides that:
1. Have tropical cyclones increased?
2. Have extreme tornadoes increased?
3. Are there more floods now?
4. Are we seeing more droughts?
5. Has the rate of sea level rise increased?
And how are those polar bears doing?
Steve. Your five points out why the warmer the better for the planet and its inhabitants. I’ve thought that for a long time. Not being a scientist of any sort, I’ve relied on observation of how plants and animals, including us human beans, react to the variety of weather which the planet cycles through constantly.
If its really cold, we pile on the layers of clothing to keep warm. Stay indoors more where it is warm. If it is warm outside, we remove as many layers of clothing as is decent(for most folks) to cool down, or go indoors where there is air conditioned spaces. Just look where most folks live by choice. Not in the Antartica or the North Pole. Simple logic explains that, not the BS being spouted by the climate cultists of the AGW ideological religion.
Just sayin’.
I think it’s the case that humans cannot survive in most parts of the without clothes, an artificial source of heat and shelter. By survive I mean live from birth to maturity and produce offspring that do the same
We are a tropical species. This is undisputable from our physiology, manifested by our lack of fur cover and the highest density of sweat glands in any mammal. We were designed by nature to efficiently lose heat.
There are two separate issues here.
1) Is CO2 causing the world to warm.
2) Is a warmer world a problem.
If EITHER of these is not true, then the rational for regulating CO2 production collapses.
Javier deals with issue 1) you address issue 2). Addressing either issue has value.
“the issue is weather a warmer world is a problem or not?”
Intentional typo?
No, just ignorance
😀😀, always love humility
Warm times are associated with better times for humankind, and I say so in the book.
Thanks for the reply. There could also be five points listed that demonstrate the dishonesty that climate science is prone to exhibit.
1. Satellite Sea Level Adjustments
2. IPCC Changes to Sea Ice Extent Graphs
3. Govenment deletion of historical Forest fire graphs
4. Changes to GISTEMP records over time
5. GWP numbers created with Clever math to exaggerate the warming
power of methane.
Do not be deterred by the description of not being a breezy read. All that really means is that there is a lot of material to digest. But, having dipped in I can confirm it is presented in a very readable fashion. It is not a turgid effort constrained to scipap speak.
Give it a go, and dip in. You will find you absorb knowledge you didn’t have, and remind yourself of things you know while fitting them into place in a bigger picture. Armed with the experience you will more likely persuade others to do so too.
From the foreword by Judith Curry quoted by Kip Hansen above: “If Vinós’ analysis is correct, thinking that we can control the Earth’s climate by reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be the greatest folly of the 21st century. This is a debate that we need to have.”
Why “if?” Even supposing Vinós’ analysis is off the mark in some way, it is already evident that reducing CO2 emissions cannot be reliably demonstrated to have ANY climate modification effect. It is the greatest folly of the 21st century, period.
I have yet to read the full book, but I read every word of the series of posts. Much appreciation to Javier Vinós, Andy May, and others.
“I have yet to read the full book, but I read every word of the series of posts. Much appreciation to Javier Vinós, Andy May, and others. ”
I haven’t read the book yet, but have followed the series, and the series shows us just how complicated the Earth’s weather really is.
I look forward to reading the entire book and I think you guys are on the right track in explaining what is happening with the Earth’s atmosphere.
CO2 appears to be a minor player in the scheme of things.
What are the odds of any of things detailed in this book, making their way into any of the climate models?
“After reading this book, I am perhaps more concerned about a coming ice age in several thousand years time than I am about the possibility of catastrophic warming from greenhouse gas emissions on the timescale of the 21st century. If Vinós’ analysis is correct, thinking that we can control the Earth’s climate by reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be the greatest folly of the 21st century.”
Amen. Glacial periods are to be feared beyond anything else. Imagine a mile of ice where New York city sits now, which did happen only 12,000 years ago. That is a mere blink in time.
So here we sit, on the very, very end of the warming that ended the little ice age and people are wringing their hands about it and blaming it on human endeavors. Newsflash – we aren’t important to the earth’s climate changes. We are, instead, a RESULT of climate change.
Worse, it has been shown (reference unremembered) that an interglacial can end in only 10 years! Some of us could be alive to witness it. Our interglacial has already lasted as long as interglacials typically last, so our days are numbered.
Not even fossil fuels will save us from that future. Nuclear would help, if it was designed to survive a glacial, but much of the earth will again be covered with ice in the coming future. History shows us that these cycles repeat.
Oh, and by the way, it has also been shown that CO2 emissions follow temperature changes. That’s why it was so low in the LIA…and is now recovering.
I hope that I will find the time to read this book with the focus that it deserves although I doubt that the demands on my time will allow it any time soon. I must first try to conquer the recent series by JV & AM here on WUWT. Those fascinating posts were already highly resistant to skimming. To think that the book is more rigorous and extends beyond 700 pages is quite daunting.
Whatever else may be said, it is a testament to one man’s love of truth. Can you comprehend the hours of meticulous effort implied by such a work?
Reading this book will not supply all of the answers to the mysteries of the climate, but it will get you far closer to the truth – the scientific answers to the best of our current knowledge — free of the politics of “Climate Science”.
I don’t think this book represents the best of our current knowledge. On some things maybe.
While Javier’s book was a fantastic effort with some good information, in important places it was inverted from reality like IPCC reports are, as they both get modern climate change wrong for the same reason by ignoring the TSI effect on long-term solar-absorbed heat accumulation by the ocean, with too much primary emphasis put on the atmosphere, rather than the ocean.
Climate science is not actually free of politics, nor this book which rests on a false assumption partly established by politicians. The IPCC reports were based on 1990s assessments of the TSI climate effect, before the TSI and climate industry really matured. A Gore-guided groupthink bandwagon effect set in, and today denying the sun’s varying power has unfortunately become an essential platform of all false climate science. This book, based on similar literature, is the latest in a long line to deny the sun’s actual historical power changes. It’s like repeating a lie.
The book does not pretend to represent the best of our current knowledge on climate. Even an encyclopedia would not suffice. As I say in the introduction, the book is a detailed examination of unanswered natural climate change questions and problems, whose discussion is usually restricted to highly specialized scientific works. It discusses natural climate change questions that most people would not find out about easily. Doing so inevitably reduces the importance of anthropogenic forcing in the present climate change.
coolclimate ==> The phrase you seem to object to is my definition of “[scientific] truth” — “far closer to the truth – the scientific answers to the best of our current knowledge” .
Not Dr. Vinos’ words, but mine.
Your different of opinion about TSI does not make his opinion a lie.
Calling differences of opinion “lies” is what politicians do, not scientists.
I do not consider the TSI issue a matter of opinion, but of fact, something verifiable. As I’ve said the 1990s TSI view is still in play while obsoleted now with new data.
The IPCC claims that CO2 is the climate driver, is their opinion, something that is objectively falsifiable. The constant repeating of something like that that is so easily falsifiable is in fact a lie repeated. The IPCC repeatedly claims the sun’s TSI does not affect the climate significantly, something which I show is factually untrue, it does so, so they are propagating a lie, the same lie Javier relies 100% upon by his repeating it.
What Javier does with his opinion is assume my position is based only “an opinion“.
Javier told me (Bob Weber) during his article series that the position I held against him regarding the primacy of atmospheric transport was only “my opinion”, when actually I was speaking from verifiable facts, which I demonstrated with this set of images to show my position is fact-based, statistically robust, not just opinion. He was wrong.
It seems that any disagreement with Javier is deemed ‘opinion’ automatically, as though he is the authority on the matter regardless of any opposing facts presented, something that ironically is just like what the IPCC and their supporters do.
I remind you that I was here with my sun-climate work before he even started in 2014.
What is far closer to the truth, that is, what is the truth is that I determined what the Modern Maximum was in 2014, and posted it here often in the form of this image and by description, which Javier praised once at least 2.5 years ago. His Mod Max is a clone of mine, with one year added. Mine is 1935-2004, his is 1935-2005. The truth is I discovered this Modern Maximum and I wasn’t credited for it. That’s not an opinion.
You have a serious problem. To claim that you discovered the Modern Solar Maximum in 2014 is to offer proof of your ignorance of climate science.
The Modern Solar Maximum was identified by Paul Damon and John Jirikowic in two articles in 1994.
Jirikowic, J.L. and Damon, P.E., 1994. The medieval solar activity maximum. In The Medieval Warm Period (pp. 309-316). Springer, Dordrecht.
Damon, P.E. and Jirikowic, J.L., 1994. Solar forcing of global climate change. In International Astronomical Union Colloquium (Vol. 143, pp. 301-314). Cambridge University Press.
For example:
How can you claim to have discovered something that was already identified 20 years earlier? You are short on facts and long on claims.
Bob Weber and Javier Vinos ==> This post is a Book Review and it is inappropriate to argue points of view about one scientific issue here. It will not add to the general readerships understanding of the book or its contents.
Obviously, you both have your own views on TSI and have had this fight earlier and elsewhere.
Let’s just leave it alone. Mr. Weber could possibly write and submit a complete essay on the issue from his point of view for all to read. Dr. Vinos has already written his view in posts here and at Climate Etc. and in his most recent book.
No bickering, please. I will snip any such from this time on.
Repeating, Javier’s book is a fine piece of work.
My congratulations.
I will buy the book.
Regards, Allan
Do you know if anyone reported hurricane force winds when Nicole hit Florida? This data seems to be missing.
John ==> This NHC page shows Nicole just at Hurricane Force at landfall:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at2+shtml/145629.shtml?swath
Yes, that is the narrative — a cartoon. I’m looking for actual reports of wind data. I can not find any supporting conventional wind reports — such as from coastal or buoy anemometers.
Re reading the advisories and discussions it is clear that the claim of bare hurricane status was made just after it crossed Grand Bahama, but that by the time it reached Florida winds had already diminished. Such evidence as I could find from Grand Bahama, including local weather station records and local news reports suggested that the claim was exaggerated.
It does look as though the claims hurricane status may have been politically inspired by the ongoing COP conference.
Always in the past whenever a storm hits the coast the news media jumps up and down announcing the highest wind speeds observed during landfall — but not for Nicole. Why is that? What was the max sustained surface wind observed during landfall?
I’m at the point where I question every claim put out by NOAA and NASA Climate.
I’m skeptical that Nicole was a hurricane when it hit Florida.
But not the news media. They were hyping a claim that this was a highly unusual hurricane strike in November.
But it might not have been a hurricane and I don’t trust NOAA to tell the truth. I think NOAA will put the thumb on the scale any time they can hype severe weather. If Nicloe’s wind were 70mph, I wouldn’t be surprised that somebody at NOAA managed to up the number to 75mph to turn it into a hurricane. It’s a pathetic situation when you have no faith in our government to tell us the truth.
The NHC has been changing the rules for several years. I am seeing this as does Neil Frank, former NHC Director. Here is his video … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzAQ6CIPqDI . And here is his WUWT statement … https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/11/how-busy-was-the-2020-hurricane-season/
From the article: “Better yet, buy an eBook version from any of the suppliers linked in the essay – the price is right and “the laborer is worthy of his wages”.”
I just bought my copy for $2.99 at Amazon.
Thank you. I made the book accessible to everybody because I want to pass on the knowledge I received from others. I appreciate the support.
In my experience, graphs, maps, etc. are useless on Kindle and other eBook readers. The pdf acts as an anodyne to those squinting over tiny e-reader screens.
Have you looked at it using an ipad?
Tom ==> Worth far more than the asking price, in this case.
Oh, I definitely agree. I was surprised it was going for $2.99.
I discovered a while back that the quickest way to get up to speed on “climate change” was to search online” what causes ice ages” when one reads the articles ( all the way through) it becomes obvious that we simply do not understand all the mechanisms of climate with enough precision to make claims of catastrophic manmade global warming. I look forward reading this book.
The standard alarmist counter argument is that human forcing is unique, making historical statistical analysis irrelevant. Is this argument addressed?
I noticed alot of the readers digest type of essays on ice ages are more and more“polluted” with a paragraphs or two on AGM. But the longer more complex articles that deal with feed back and forceings( beyond solar and orbital cycles) still admit significant unknowns and more study /data needed. Maybe this book can help .
That would be good. However Javier makes some very strong claims with great certainty. It is hard to argue certainty and uncertainty at the same time.
All I say is supported by evidence. Other authors reach different conclusions from the same evidence. Climate is so complex I don’t expect to be right about everything I say. Time will tell how right I am.
Kip, nice review. Javier sent me a .pdf copy prepublication. I wrote a very positive review of his book over at Amazon Kindle after it published, but not as thorough as yours.
Rud ==> For writers, venue matters more than most think.
I bought a Kindle version from Amazon. It is in a cloud. Must be damp there so I hope it doesn’t disintegrate before I finish reading. I’m busy.
On the other hand, having been reading about the issues (WUWT and others), I’m familiar with many of the words.
The AMO and the Mediterranean are definitely warmer and not colder during grand solar minima.
Grand solar minima, which are longer duration centennial solar minima, occur in a series on a 863 (+/-20) year cycle, with the next series starting from the 2090’s.
Three times 863 years is close to 2600 years, at 2589 years, but every fourth one at 3453 years is stronger in GISP2. The next two centennial minima are in fact very good analogues of those starting from 1365 BC and 1250 BC, 3453 years earlier.
The Eddy cycle predictably goes out of phase with GISP2 after 4000 years, it’s too long. The de Vries cycle is a bit short for two centennial minimum intervals, and probably gained popularity through lack of awareness of the centennial solar minima from 1550 and in the late 1800’s (Gleissberg Minimum), they are every 110 years on average.
That is very generous of Dr Vinós and I thank him for the opportunity to take a deep look at climate cycles and climate history. This also forced me to register to comment and WordPress was painless.
Thanks to Kip for his choice from the Preface – I remember very much the cold 1970s, and then the seemingly earlier spring flowerings, the migratory birds that didn’t leave, and anecdotal reports of insects in tune with the earlier flushes of growth on their host plants. I was a true believer in the satanic CO2 and very much in line with this quote from the Preface:
“Before 2014 I had never looked at the evidence and I would have defended the official position as I would have found unthinkable that the extraordinary evidence to support those extraordinary claims wasn’t there.”
Change the date to 2009, when Climategate exposed the corrupt cabal controlling the narrative, and that would have been me. I’d already noticed that those non-migratory birds were species like robins sheltering around power plants and feeding on dried fruits clinging to street trees, not warblers or even sparrows. I also noticed that the plants in the countryside were not so early blooming/flusing as their city cousins. Then I started critically looking at the climate papers in my areas of expertise and was shocked to find that most of them were garbage that should never have gotten through peer review. I was very naïve then.
Anyway, I became a heretic, but not a climatologist. I hope Javier’s book will make Dansgaard–Oeschger, Bølling–Allerød, obliquity, eccentricity, etc. things I understand as part of a process, not words I look up and forget 5 minutes later. If so then I will be delighted to buy a copy of the book.
Thankyou Javier, and Andy May, for this well-written book. It is the best overall hypothesis that I have seen explaining the forces that cause an ever-changing climate.
“It is the best overall hypothesis that I have seen explaining the forces that cause an ever-changing climate.”
I agree. It shows the complexity of the Earth’s climate. It shows we have a long way to go in understanding how everything works, and CO2 does not seem to be a dominating factor. It is just one of many processes involved.
So Javier are we Humans facing a Climate Crisis or Existential Threat?
In 1800 just 1 billion people and life expectancy under 40. Today 8 billion and global life expectancy 73. See Macrotrends or OWI data sites, quoting UN data.
But poor African population in 1950 just 227 million , in 1970 363 million and today 1400 million. DUH?
African life expectancy in 1950 just 36, in 1970 46, but today 64 years.
We’ve been sold a pup and our so called scientists should be held to account.
See Dr Rosling’s BBC video and takes just 5 minutes to watch, 200 countries 1800 to 2010. When are we going to WAKE UP?