Tom Nelson Interviews Javier Vinós

By Andy May

Tom Nelson interviewed Dr. Javier Vinós on January 31, 2023, the interview can be seen here. Or click on the image below.

Part of the interview was a prepared presentation. The text and some of the illustrations from Javier’s presentation are given below. The recorded interview has more illustrations and information than this post. It is quite good and recommended. Stay on to hear the discussion between Tom and Javier at the end, it is worth it. And look at the comments, they are very favorable.

Christian Freuer has translated this post into German if you prefer that language, see here.

Javier’s presentation:

This is the story of a search for a little-known phenomenon called natural climate change. A search that has taken me years.

First, I looked to the IPCC for an answer. They are supposed to have all the answers about climate change.

The IPCC has concluded that recent climate change is caused mainly by greenhouse gas emissions of human origin.

Figure 1. The correlation between CO2 concentration and the global surface temperature anomaly.

Their main evidence is that CO2 levels and global temperature have been increasing together over time. The correlation is generally good, although not so good between 1915 and 1945, when the early 20th-century warming took place, nor during the mid-20th-century cooling that followed.

An increase in CO2 levels enhances the greenhouse effect. On a planet without greenhouse gases, the shortwave solar radiation is returned as longwave thermal radiation from the surface. When greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere, they absorb and emit longwave radiation. This process causes the average height of emission to space to move higher. If the planet has an atmosphere with a positive lapse rate where the temperature decreases as the height increases, as the troposphere does, the surface must warm as the average emission altitude moves upward to return all the energy received from the Sun to space. Doubling the amount of CO2 results in a higher average emission altitude and increased surface warming.

Figure 2. Doubling the greenhouse gas concentration raises the average emission altitude.

The greenhouse effect depends on a positive lapse rate and a change in the average height of emission. That’s why it doesn’t work over Antarctica where the surface is generally colder than the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect goes in reverse there and cools instead of warming.

The increase in CO2 only produces a relatively small amount of direct warming, according to the greenhouse theory.

Figure 3. Very little warming is directly due to additional human generated CO2, most is from supposed positive feedbacks. Projecting the IPCC CO2 hypothesis back in time results in much more cooling than observed.

Most of the warming is supposedly produced by poorly known feedbacks, whose contribution to the warming cannot be measured because it cannot be distinguished from the signal.

Even less known is the contribution from negative feedbacks. They must exist because stable systems, such as Earth’s climate, are dominated by negative feedbacks. The Iris effect was proposed by Professor Richard Lindzen, and we will see later that I propose Arctic warming as a negative feedback.

Let’s assume that all the observed warming is produced by the CO2 increase. The IPCC wrongly assumes this in climate sensitivity studies, so we will assume it also. Most of the warming should come from feedbacks.

In Figure 4, we see how this is supposed to work for the IPCC with a mean estimated climate sensitivity of 3° Celsius per doubling of CO2. This result cannot be correct. Besides denying a natural climate change effect, it would make the pre-industrial climate far colder than it was.

Figure 4. The IPCC assumed global warming forcing since 1750AD.

Climate scientists writing these reports defend that all climate change since 1750 has a human origin. Such an absurd claim defies common sense, but this is the outcome their models produce straight from the theory. There is only one possible conclusion. Their theory is wrong or incomplete and their models don’t work.

So, the IPCC answer is that natural climate change is so feeble that it plays no role. They assume that all recent climate change has a human origin, and most of it is due to changes in greenhouse gas levels.

It is time to look at the past and see what natural climate change was, and is, capable of doing.

Figure 5 shows in black global temperature changes over the past 50 million years from a famous article in Science, and in red CO2 levels from a collection of proxies in an article in Nature Geoscience by Beerling & Royer.

Figure 5. Estimated global temperature, in black, and estimated average CO2 concentration, in red, for the past 52 million years.

Despite claims to the contrary by these authors, the data shows that most of the time temperature and CO2 were moving in opposite directions for millions of years. There’s a lot more disagreement than agreement in this graph. The blue triangle highlights a major discrepancy that is over 10 million years long.

At the end of the Eocene, Antarctica froze up in less than a million years and global temperature took a dive at a time when CO2 levels were the highest in the past 52 million years.

Then, from the Mid-Oligocene to the Mid-Miocene-Climate-Optimum the planet warmed quite a lot. Nobody has been able to explain it because CO2 sank to levels significantly lower than what we have today, at the broad end of the blue triangle in the figure. This is discussed in my book, where I propose it was due to tectonic changes affecting atmospheric heat transport.

Close examination of the past 11 thousand years shows the disagreement between temperature and CO2 continues, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. No correlation between CO2 and temperature for the past 11,000 years.

The black curve is a temperature reconstruction from 72 proxies published in a famous 2013 Science paper, analyzed differently by me. The data is the same as originally published, but I have expressed it in standard deviations from the average for each proxy. I do not think we can possibly know the temperature of the planet then, if we cannot know the temperature of the planet in the 19th century. Do not jump to conclusions about the end of the curve, because it does not reach the present.

The red curve is the CO2 concentration from Antarctic cores. The range in CO2 levels is tiny, about 20 ppm, which is the change we get today in less than a decade. Even then, CO2 is always doing the opposite to temperature, going down when the temperature stays high, and up when the temperature goes down.

DESPITE these small CO2 changes…

Proxies from different parts of the world sometimes reflect important changes in temperature, wind, and precipitation. The coincidence in time of the changes for different kinds of proxies from different regions of the world reveals over 20 abrupt climate events over the past 11,000 years or about two per millennium. These are times when climate parameters change much faster than the long-term baseline change.

They appear to have different causes, and changes in greenhouse gases can only be a cause for the last one. I won’t go over this list, that is in my book.

But four of the biggest ones took place when solar activity was very low and are separated by multiples of 2500 years. The last three are separated by close to that amount of time, and the first two by close to 5000 years, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Four major Holocene abrupt climate events.

If we go back to the temperature reconstruction, we observe these four events were among the biggest in terms of the temperature effect. The last one is known as the Little Ice Age, which is contemporaneous with the IPCC’s “pre-industrial” period.

In Figure 7 we have added the radiocarbon curve (purple and blue). It has been built since the 1960s by thousands of scientists and is rock-solid science. It is the basis for carbon dating. Scientists measure the ratio of 14C (carbon-14) to 12C (carbon-12) in their sample and establish a radiocarbon date. I didn’t put that in the vertical axis to simplify the graph. Then they use this curve to translate this radiocarbon date into a calendar date.

At times solar activity becomes very low for a long time, and more cosmic rays arrive at the Earth producing more 14C, and the radiocarbon clock runs faster making the samples look younger than they are. This produces the odd bumps in the curve. They correspond to grand solar minima.

The four climate events coincide with four of the biggest grand solar minima of the past. They are of the Spörer-type, which last longer and reduce solar activity the most.

There’s a recent study on the past human population in the British Isles. Human population takes off after the arrival of farmers to the British Isles and it shows a very good correspondence with the temperature reconstruction. Several of the changes coincide in time.

When we look at the last three big climate events, we see substantial population decreases coinciding with all of them. Look how the red population curve drops.

This agreement between independent sources is called consilience and says we are looking at a real phenomenon. When solar activity goes down for a long time, the climate takes a dive, and humans suffer. No other explanation is consistent with this data.

Paleoclimatologists have long recognized it. They write all the time in their articles (see a list of the most important here) about the solar modulation of climate on centennial timescales. They link low solar activity to cooling events, and they even talk about cyclic changes induced by small variations in solar radiation.

They are good scientists in their field, but nobody listens to them. This is wrong and we cannot explain why they are ignored. Why has the solar/climate connection not been properly investigated?

I studied over a hundred papers to see what the different proxies were saying happened in different parts of the world during those four abrupt climate events. I am surprised this has not been done before. Why did a molecular biologist have to do it?

The result is consistent with a complete reorganization of the atmosphere, which takes several decades to a century, and induces severe cooling. The Hadley cell contracts, the polar cell expands, the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles becomes steeper, and more heat is transported poleward, cooling the northern mid-latitudes. See Figure 8.

Figure 8. The reorganization of the atmosphere that takes place in abrupt climate events caused by clusters of grand solar minima.

The Arctic initially warms from increased heat transport, but as more energy is being lost at the poles in winter, the entire planet starts cooling and the Arctic with it. The effect is strongest in the northern mid-latitudes.

The longer the situation lasts, the colder the planet gets, despite solar activity remaining at the same low level, not much lower than during a regular solar minimum like in 2009. It is like opening a door in winter for a minute or six hours. The house gets much colder in the second case.

The recovery from this atmospheric reorganization is also slow, producing a long period of warming once solar activity goes back to normal.

Past climate analysis tells us that climate change and CO2 changes do not correlate most of the time. Most abrupt climate events we can identify in the past took place in the absence of significant greenhouse gas changes, and several of the events correlate with solar activity changes.

So, let’s see what science can tell us about natural climate changes taking place now. The natural climate change the IPCC says doesn’t matter.

The AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) is defined as an oscillatory change in sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic.

Figure 9 is an image that shows that during a warm AMO, the heat accumulation in the mid-latitudes suggests a heat transport issue.

Figure 9. Sea surface temperatures during a warm AMO.

The energy input to the climate system is nearly constant from year to year, but energy transport is not, and heat accumulates in certain regions at certain times, as we see in Figure 9.

So, the figure shows how heat is being extracted from the equatorial region and directed poleward, and due to how the AMO is defined, Figure 9 focuses on the Atlantic. When we focus on the Pacific, we see something similar which we call the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO.

The ascending part of the AMO indicates low poleward transport, so heat accumulates in that basin. The descending part indicates the opposite.

When we look at the cumulative and detrended PDO (Figure 10, middle panel) we see that its phases agree quite well with the AMO, with some differences between basins.

Figure 10. Comparing the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) to the detrended cumulative Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the HadCRUT 4 detrended global average surface temperature anomaly.

As was discovered in the 1990s, these oscillations strongly affect global temperature. If we detrend the temperature data (bottom panel in Figure 10), we can see the effect is about 0.3° Celsius.

The IPCC only cares about the trend I removed in the lower part of Figure 10, but that means they assume the oceanic oscillation is stationary, which it is not. It did not have the same amplitude and period during the Little Ice Age. The amplitude of the oscillation got a lot stronger around 1850, when global warming started, suggesting it contributed to global warming.

Then we come to El Niño…

El Niño is part of the heat transport system. When too much heat accumulates in the tropical Pacific, El Niño moves it to the atmosphere.

Figure 11. On the left we compare La Niña (blue) to ENSO Neutral (orange), and yearly sunspots (gray). ENSO neutral and La Niña alternate. Sunspot lows normally suggest La Niña. The right panel is a frequency plot of ENSO events.

Colored squares in the figure represent the condition for each year. When we analyze the frequency for each condition separately, we discover that the frequency of Las Niñas (in blue) strongly anti-correlates to the frequency of neutral years (in orange). There is no red curve because El Niño frequency is not represented, the gray curve is the solar cycle.

Los Niños take place when sufficient warm water has accumulated, but the rest of the years the decision to be a La Niña or a neutral year is strongly affected by the solar cycle. Neutral years follow solar activity, while Las Niñas do the opposite.

This is reflected in a frequency analysis of El Niño by a peak in temperature change at the 11-year frequency (right-hand panel of Figure 11). The graph is from a 2010 article that does not mention this peak, only the others.

Due to the way solar radiation arrives to the Earth, more energy enters the climate system over the tropics than exits.

Over the rest of the planet, more energy exits the climate system than enters.

To prevent the tropics from continuously warming and the rest of the planet from continuously cooling, heat must be transported poleward.

This heat transport is responsible for what we call weather and the hydrological cycle. Everything happens because there is energy running through the system. On average, energy exits the climate system at a higher latitude than it enters in. as shown in the left panel of Figure 12.

Figure 12. Poleward meridional transport of energy. The right-hand graph shows the split between ocean transport and atmospheric transport. Except in the deep tropics, the atmosphere does most the transport.

We do not understand this transport well. Models do a poor job of duplicating it.

The right graph shows how much energy is transported at each latitude. It has this curious shape because the Equator is just a line and very little energy is transported across it, and the poles are just a point that receives very little solar energy. The geometry of the Earth dictates that transport is largest at around 35° because that’s where heat from half of the hemisphere is transported to the other half.

Close to the Equator, the oceans transport most of the heat poleward, but soon after, the oceans transfer this heat to the atmosphere, and at mid-latitudes, the atmosphere does the bulk of poleward heat transport. At high latitudes, the atmosphere is responsible for almost all poleward heat transport.

Figure 13. Energy net gain (red) and net loss (blue) by latitude.

In Figure 13 we see the net flux of radiation during the northern hemisphere winter at the top of the atmosphere. I have inverted the graph, so the zero line represents the top of the atmosphere, that is the altitude where the Northern Hemisphere winter average incoming energy equals the outgoing energy. The red area is the net energy into the climate system and the blue area is the net energy out of the system towards space. The graph is not corrected for the geometry of the Earth. The dashed line is the temperature profile for the surface in January.

It is clear from Figure 13 that both the bigger loss of energy and the steeper temperature gradient demand a much larger heat transport toward the North Pole at this time of the year.

As a result, the atmospheric circulation, as the primary heat mover, becomes more active during local winter in each hemisphere.

Think of it as a see-saw. Meridional transport and atmospheric circulation go from being strongest during winter in one hemisphere to being lowest six months later.

And this see-saw affects the planet’s rotation speed…

Figure 14. Earth’s rotation speed (as the change in the length of day in milliseconds) from 2000 to 2002. Faster rotation is downward. Southern Hemisphere winters are shown in blue and Northern Hemisphere winters in red.

We have been capable of measuring the length of the day with microsecond precision since the 1960s after the invention of the atomic clock in the 50s.

Although the semi-annual change in heat transport is comparable in both hemispheres, the semi-annual change in rotation speed is not, because the distribution of land and ocean between hemispheres is very asymmetric. So, don’t pay attention to the difference in arrow length, as it is not related to the issue.

This semi-annual change in the Earth’s rotation speed is affected by the solar cycle, as shown in Figure 15. This effect has been reported every decade since the 1960s and never refuted, just ignored.

Figure 15. Changes in Earth’s rotation speed is modulated by solar activity.

Here I cite 3 reports in the last 12 years and graph two of them. In my book, I measured only the effect during the NH winter which gives the larger effect shown with the continuous black curve. The dotted curve is from Tatiana Barlyaeva et al. using a more sophisticated method over the entire dataset.

To me this is huge. As far as I can remember only Superman was capable of changing the Earth’s rotation. Gravity does, but here we are talking about a tiny change, a tenth of one percent in solar radiation. And yet the IPCC tells us that such small change cannot affect our climate much.

Well, here is the irrefutable proof that it does. The only way solar radiation can change the rotation is by changing the global atmospheric circulation.

When solar activity is low the Earth rotates faster in winter, which implies that it is making atmospheric circulation stronger and transporting more heat poleward. And the opposite happens when solar activity is high.

Scientific evidence shows oceanic oscillations strongly affect climate and meridional transport.

El Niño is also a part of the transport system and is also modulated by solar activity.

Winter atmospheric circulation is modulated by solar activity.

After consulting many thousands of articles, with over 750 of them referenced in my book, I had the radical idea that natural climate change is essentially a change in the transport of energy and that what happens at the poles in winter is the reason we are in an ice age and one of the main reasons the planet has been warming over the past centuries. I called this idea the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis.

What this hypothesis proposes is that the main natural climate change mechanism at all timescales is a persistent change in the amount of energy transported to the winter poles. At different timescales, different factors affect this meridional transport.

The polar vortex acts as an energy barrier for the winter pole. Its strength regulates how much energy is lost every winter at the poles.

On centennial timescales, solar activity is the main factor regulating meridional transport. It does this by affecting polar vortex strength and winter atmospheric circulation. Solar activity acts through stratospheric ozone, altering the planetary wave flux that ultimately controls polar vortex strength. Thus, the Sun acts on climate like a winter gatekeeper.

Persistently low solar activity causes increased energy loss by the planet, northern mid-latitudes cooling, and Arctic warming. Persistently high solar activity has the opposite effect.

Figure 16. The stratospheric polar vortex in January, as the temperature gradient in degrees C per 100 km. 20 hPa is an altitude of about 23 km or 77,000 feet.

Figure 16 is a graphical representation of the winter gatekeeper concept. It shows the horizontal temperature gradient in degrees Celsius per hundred kilometers in the stratosphere during the month of January. Something similar occurs in the tropospheric polar vortex that continues down to the middle troposphere. The area within this barrier is in constant darkness and extremely cold. Little of the heat outside crosses this barrier unless the vortex weakens.

Whatever affects the strength of this barrier constitutes a winter gatekeeper, and the Sun acts as such. Figure 16 is from a recent paper by Svetlana Veretenenko. Her work supports my finding that solar activity affects global atmospheric circulation in part through the polar vortex.

This is an important piece of the winter gatekeeper hypothesis. My hypothesis is more complete, as it includes how this is achieved through stratospheric ozone and the planetary wave flux, and how climate change is about meridional transport and anything that affects it, so the Sun is just a part of the story, although the most intriguing.

Crucial evidence for the winter gatekeeper hypothesis is that solar activity negatively correlates with winter Arctic warming as shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Solar activity negatively correlates with Arctic winter temperature.

Global warming strongly accelerated around 1975, after a previous cooling period. Arctic amplification (enhanced warming at the poles) has been a model prediction from the beginning but didn’t start until the mid-1990s. To date, nobody has been able to explain why the strong warming of the late 1970s, the 80s, and the early 90s did not produce it.

A climate shift took place in 1997. As a result, a lot more energy is being lost towards space in the Arctic.

Nearly all the energy lost to space during the Arctic winter is transported there from lower latitudes. That energy has no other place to go but to space, as the energy flux through sea ice is always from the ocean to the atmosphere, frequent temperature inversions make the surface colder than the atmosphere, and radiative cooling is the dominant energy process. By the time the Sun returns that energy is gone forever.

Figure 18. During the Arctic shift between 1997 and 2005, winter outgoing radiation increased dramatically and began to exceed summer outgoing radiation.

If you want an explanation for the famous Pause in global warming between 1998 and 2014, you need to look no further. Global warming was deprived of a lot of energy after 1997 by the Arctic shift, and this data indicates the Pause is continuing in 2023, despite the 2015 El Niño heat redistribution.

The effect of solar activity on energy loss in the Arctic is not an over-interpretation of insufficient data. The anti-correlation between solar activity and Greenland temperature goes back at least 2100 years.

Figure 19. Solar activity-Arctic temperature anti-correlation.

The article quoted in Figure 19 was published by well-known authors of very good climate science, like Takuro Kobashi, Bo Vinther, Tom Blunier, and James White.

The article’s title summarizes the study results, but ignores an inescapable conclusion not mentioned anywhere in the article. The end of the modern solar maximum in the twenty-first century is causing Greenland warming.

The diagram in Figure 20 shows how meridional heat transport is affected by different players and how it affects climate.

Figure 20. A schematic of the winter gatekeeper hypothesis.

When solar activity is high the stratospheric temperature gradient is stronger, favoring a stronger vortex. But this effect can be counteracted by an easterly stratospheric tropical wind (QBOe) circulation or by El Niño, so variability is high.

A strong polar vortex favors a weak meridional transport, and if it coincides with a rising oceanic oscillation (AMO) phase, which also reduces heat transport, the result is enhanced global warming, a cold winter Arctic and warm winter continents, as we had in the last quarter of the 20th century.

When solar activity is low the stratospheric temperature gradient is weaker, favoring a weaker vortex. But this effect can be counteracted by a westerly tropical stratospheric wind (QBOw) circulation, by La Niña, and by volcanic eruptions, so variability is also high.

A weak polar vortex favors strong meridional transport, and if it coincides with a decreasing oceanic oscillation (AMO) phase, that also increases heat transport, the result is reduced global warming or even cooling, a warm winter Arctic and cold winter mid-latitude continents, like we are seeing in the first quarter of the 21st century.

The winter gatekeeper hypothesis provides a good explanation for the surface temperature evolution over the past 120 years, indicating that recent climate change might have a strong natural component.

In this graph, I have removed the vertical axis, and the data is presented after Gaussian filter smoothing to make it simpler.

Figure 21. The Modern Solar Maximum compared to global average surface temperature (middle panel), and the AMO or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

Two of the main factors affecting meridional transport are displayed, solar activity on top, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation at the bottom. In the middle is the global surface temperature showing early 20th-century warming, mid-20th-century cooling, and late 20th-century warming.

There is a correspondence between heat transport strength and the global average surface temperature, as indicated by the overlapping colors. The data suggests that oceanic oscillations have a stronger effect on transport and surface temperature than solar activity, as seen in the 1920s warming when solar activity was low. But what made the difference for the later 20th century warming period was the modern solar maximum. It strongly increased the warming in the 1940s and in the 1975 to 2000 period. It also reduced the cooling in the 1945 to 1975 period.

This suggests that natural climate change has strongly contributed to global warming. It does not say how much of the warming is natural or how much is human caused. For that, I have no answer.

The winter gatekeeper hypothesis produces a set of predictions that are remarkably opposite to what climate models predict.

As solar activity is low and the AMO is about to start decreasing, we should expect little warming or even slight cooling until at least 2035.

The 20th century was exceptional in terms of heat transport conditions. We should expect less warming in the 21st century even if CO2 levels continue increasing

When solar activity becomes high again, Arctic cooling and Arctic sea ice growth should occur. Nobody is expecting this and it will be a big surprise when it happens. It might take place in less than two decades.

The science behind this new explanation for climate change from a million years ago to the next glaciation is fully supported by over 750 scientific references in the book I published recently. I priced it very cheap so everybody can have it, but if someone cannot buy it, my book can be downloaded for free from my ResearchGate page.

Since this is complex stuff, Andy May and I are writing a new book to explain this novel global warming hypothesis. We are trying to make it easier for anybody interested in knowing that the science is far from settled.

I was very lucky in knowing Andy May. We have been collaborating for many years. He is a retired petrophysicist with a very good understanding of climate science and a very good writer, an uncommon combination. He has written three books on climate that I fully recommend, and he also writes about history. He has a climate blog here where you can find our joint or separate climate articles, and some of the figures I have shown.

I also want to acknowledge Judith Curry and Peter Webster. Without Judy, my book would have never been published. Her climate blog is where my book took form between 2016 and 18 before the first edition was accepted by Springer. Peter provided very good advice on the second edition.

Willie Soon has encouraged me and helped me over the years. He is a shining light and a role model in climate science.

Anthony Watts has published many of my articles on his site over the years.

And this is the story of my search for natural climate change. Time will tell how successful it has been. But for me, it has been an enlightening trip that I am happy to have shared with you today.

Dr. Javier Vinós has spent decades researching neurobiology and cancer at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the University of California, UK’s Medical Research Council, and the Spanish Scientific Research Council. His scientific publications have been cited over 1,200 times by his peers. In 2015 concerns over the effects of the indisputable climate change that is taking place led him to study climate science. Since then, he has read thousands of scientific articles and analyzed data for dozens of climate variables and hundreds of climate proxies.
In 2022 Vinós published the impressive book Climate of the Past, Present and Future: A scientific debate. A free pdf version of the book can be downloaded on his webpage. A hardcover or Kindle version can also be bought at Amazon.

5 18 votes
Article Rating
100 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
February 1, 2023 6:34 pm

My impression is there is a good argument and evidence against the IPCC’s pet model. Dr Vinos need more evidence to support his modeling, plus a more attractive formulation of the general model. In other words, I think there is fair evidence for Vinos’ assertions, but I cannot quite see how the separate parts ties into a more general whole.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 1, 2023 8:53 pm

It’s a puzzle with many pieces and moving parts for sure, but in general, climate scientists want to turn it into a preschool puzzle of one piece, maybe two.

Dr. Vinós should be commended for his rather rapid and rational assemblage of disparate factors into coherent theory.

kelleydr
February 1, 2023 6:39 pm

This is a really great interview with wonderful slides. Be prepared, though, to set aside some dedicated time to follow this. It is packed with information and Javier’s heavy accent requires concentration to follow. Normally I can listen to these interviews while I’m on the elliptical, but for this one I had to sit at my laptop and follow more carefully. Definitely worthwhile.

Walter
Reply to  kelleydr
February 1, 2023 6:44 pm

Agreed. I just put on the captions since they get what he’s saying mostly correct.

Streetcred
Reply to  Andy May
February 1, 2023 9:40 pm

Simple solution that I employ … though I’m used to multiple foreign language accents … think and read English in a foreign accent 🙂 True !

Martin Cornell
Reply to  kelleydr
February 1, 2023 9:12 pm

This is all in his book with Andy May, and much more such as his discussion on solar activity, the ozone layer (tropical) and the variation of these factors on MT,

Walter
February 1, 2023 6:42 pm

I watched the interview; pretty fascinating stuff. I tried reading his book but it’s not an easy read at all. I thought I knew at climate science, but trying to read that really humbled me. I hope Javier keeps researching. He is now probably one of the most important people regarding the whole climate change issue. Centuries from now historians will study him and his vigorous undertake in studying climate science should his hypothesis come true. I hope it does, because I also want to see Al Gore, Michael Mann, etc. completely humiliated.

Last edited 1 month ago by Walter
MarkH
February 1, 2023 6:44 pm

Tom Nelson’s interesting interviews are also available on Rumble, a platform that stands against the censorship that is all too often experienced on larger platforms like YouTube.

His Rumble channel can be found here: https://rumble.com/c/c-1898841

This podcast is the latest he has released: https://rumble.com/v27wr5t-67-javier-vins-searching-for-natural-climate-change-tom-nelson-podcast-70.html

John Shewchuk
February 1, 2023 7:07 pm

Javier has produced ground-breaking work in the field of climate science. His winter gatekeeper hypothesis is fascinating and deserves serious attention. His book provides eye-opening explanations of how the sun influences so many aspects of our atmosphere. His book is a treasrue trove of cutting edge climate research. You will not be disappointed.

Dan Pangburn
February 1, 2023 7:32 pm

An explanation of why CO2, in spite of being IR active, has no significant effect on climate is described at https://energyredirect3.blogspot.com  and documents referenced therein.

This graph demonstrates the growing separation between the rapidly rising CO2 level and barely changing average global temperature. 

Current & Vostok T & CO2.jpg
Alexy Scherbakoff
February 1, 2023 7:57 pm

There are many factors that affect Earth’s rotation.
I would be mightily impressed if someone can correlate the rotation with the ‘strength?’ of winters and summers over this period.
https://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/index.php

Last edited 1 month ago by Alexy Scherbakoff
Nick Stokes
February 1, 2023 8:39 pm

“Climate scientists writing these reports defend that all climate change since 1750 has a human origin. Such an absurd claim defies common sense, but this is the outcome their models produce straight from the theory.”

Please quote what they say. They don’t say that at all.

This claim sits under Fig 4, which absurdly shows radiative forcing with human-caused, solar and volcanic, and says that “natural climate change is not even considered”. But the plot shows that contrary. It was considered and calculated. The forcing turned out to be near zero over the period. 

But anyway, change is not the same as forcing. Unforced change is possible, and happens. The diagram just lists forcings that can be quantified.

“Despite claims to the contrary by these authors, the data shows that most of the time temperature and CO2 were moving in opposite directions for millions of years”

An almost universal fallacy here. There are no claims to the contrary. Recent change is largely driven by CO2 forcing. That is possible because CO2 is forced. It is rising because we are digging up and burning fossil carbon. That never happened before about 1750.

In fact, as Arrhenius explained in about 1908 (and it wasn’t new then), over millions of years CO2 in the air is determined by a balance between volcanic emission and conversion to carbonate, which is made possible by the raising of pH by gradual breakdown of basic rocks. These are slow processes. Other slow processes cause slow changes in temperature. In this current ice age, a rather faster glacial oscillation is superimposed.

Mike
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 1, 2023 8:53 pm

”Unforced change is possible”

Is it?
Tip…Everything in the universe is connected to everything else. When something moves it forces movement of something else.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
Nick Stokes
Reply to  Mike
February 1, 2023 9:46 pm

Do you make unforced movements?

Redge
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 1, 2023 10:28 pm

Depends on how hot the curry was.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 2, 2023 6:32 pm

Are you taking the piss?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Mike
February 1, 2023 11:06 pm

I’ve only come across the term ‘forcing’ in ‘climate science’.

rxc6422
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
February 2, 2023 11:46 am

Changing the language to support the desired outcome is an important part of modern “sciences”.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 1, 2023 10:47 pm

True, the point that paleo-climate reconstructions indicate that the climate has warmed and cooled independently of the CO2 concentration in the past is largely irrelevant to the cause/s of the assumed global temperature net increase over past 150 years or so.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 1, 2023 11:48 pm

If the climate has been largely insensitive to CO2 changes in the past, why should it be sensitive now?

If a different unknown factor was responsible for most climate change in the past, why should it not be acting now?

If we don’t understand natural climate change, why do we claim to understand human-caused climate change?

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 12:32 am

The vast periods of time represented in paleo-reconstructions make comparisons with the past 150 years unconvincing.
I’m not a scientist my point is simply based on deductive logic, because modern climate change can include naturally-caused fluctuations it does not follow CO2 cannot also be a factor, that I think you would agree to although some do not.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 2, 2023 1:02 am

The only way to know how much climate change is being driven by CO2 is to see how much climate change in the past can be attributed to CO2, as recently we only have one situation of rapidly increasing CO2, while the past has seen every imaginable situation. The evidence supports that CO2 could not possibly have been the main climate change driver in the past, except at some very particular periods.

For the past 150 years, CO2 can only have been a factor since about 1960 when it started to increase rapidly. That’s 70 years. Then we have that between 1945 and 1975 climate was cooling, for which an ad-hoc explanation had to be added.

It is reasonable to expect warming from the increase in greenhouse gases. We have observed warming. Scientists like explanations with the least possible number of elements (Occam’s razor). That’s how orthodoxy is built. Then if you say “CO2 can also be a factor” you are out of the orthodoxy.

When you think you have the answer you stop looking for it. Ignorance is the driver of science. As Feynman said:

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.

The demand for certainty in climate change is making a mockery of climate science.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 8:17 am

“The demand for certainty in climate change is making a mockery of climate science.”

There is no certainty except forClimate Howlers starting with a conclusion: Manmade CO2 is evil, AND REPEATING IT 43 YEARS IN A ROW.

Every week, it seems, we get a new report saying CO2 is worse than we thought, or that CO2 will kill your dog. This is not science at all — it is climate change scaremongering propaganda based on always wrong wild guess predictions of climate doom. Supported by the appeal to government authority logical fallacy and the mass media censorship of opposing (real science) views.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 2, 2023 6:06 am

‘The vast periods of time represented in paleo-reconstructions make comparisons with the past 150 years unconvincing.’

Care to explain the ‘deductive logic’ in that statement?

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 2, 2023 9:32 pm

My latter comment does not relate to the point about paleo-climate reconstructions where the time resolutions are far too coarse to infer any meaningful relationships between CO2 and temperature.
When considering two possible causes for ‘climate change’ in this case, concluding one cause viz. natural variation is true it does not logically follow that the other possibility viz. CO2 must be false.
That is the formal logical fallacy of ‘affirming a disjunct’, both could be true, look it up in Wiki.

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris Hanley
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 3, 2023 10:59 am

‘That is the formal logical fallacy of ‘affirming a disjunct’, both could be true…’

Only if you suppress the preponderance of evidence from paleo records that CO2 has little impact on temperature. That’s called ‘cherry picking’ or the ‘suppressed evidence fallacy’. You can look it up in Wiki.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 1:41 am

If the climate has been largely insensitive to CO2 changes in the past, why should it be sensitive now?”
It wasn’t insensitive. It’s just that no-one was pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now they are, and we are seeing the response.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 2, 2023 2:47 am

Now they are, and we are seeing the response.

You are not seeing the response, you are assuming the observed change is due to a response. But you lack the evidence for that. In science, it is crucial to clearly define what you can be sure about.

The early 20th-century warming is a very serious obstacle to the attribution of most observed changes to the increase in CO2, yet it is being used to calculate climate sensitivity and to tell us how much warming our future emissions are going to produce. It is all an unrecognized house of cards.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Andy May
February 2, 2023 5:35 am

Nick’s claim is religious dogma. “natural CO2 rise good, man-made CO2 rise bad”.

CO2 levels in the past were higher than today yet temperatures cooled, they didn’t warm. Does the biosphere have some way of distinguishing between natural and man-made?

Richard Greene
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 2, 2023 8:09 am

No manmade CO2 was added to the atmosphere until the +50% increase from 1850 (estimated) to 2023 (measured). Manmade CO2 is a relatively new cause of climate change. It seems harmless, so far.

The high levels of CO2 in the past are evidence that CO2 is not a strong greenhouse gas above 400ppm (we already knew that from lab spectroscopy).

And there was never any runaway warming (the imaginary ultimate end of the CAGW boogeyman fantasy), so we don’t have to worry about that.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Andy May
February 2, 2023 6:28 am

Nick’s belief is faith based- which is his privilege, but he can’t say it’s “settled science”.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Andy May
February 2, 2023 6:25 pm

 responded to the large CO2 concentration changes in the past”

On a millennial time scale, the changes were limited. The reason was that there was only a limited amount of mobile C in circulation, maybe 1500 Gt in air, sea and bio. And it could only be shifted around. What is new is that we are adding to that total on a decadal time scale.

There are slow processes that can make bigger changes (volcano, basic rock breakdown) over millions of years. They are mixed with similar slow temperature processes, eg orbital.

 You also ignore the consilience that solar activity changes influence climate.”

No. The sensitivity is often exaggerated, but anyway in the period concerned, solar changes didn’t really go anywhere.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 2, 2023 8:08 am

The open season at the coal port in Spitsbergen (Svalbard) went from 3 months of the year before 1920 to over 7 months of the year in the late 1930s indicating a considerable warming of the Arctic. This took place when CO2 levels were negligible – as mentioned above they didn’t really start to increase rapidly till 20 years later. What then caused the warming of the Arctic between 1920 -40?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Dave Andrews
February 2, 2023 5:14 pm

Some warming was caused by rising CO2. There were no doubt other factors.

The open season at the coal port in Spitsbergen (Svalbard) went from 3 months of the year before 1920 to over 7 months of the year”

Here, from here, is a summary of the current situation:

For oversea cruise ships, the main destination in Svalbard is Longyearbyen (Fig. 1), where they stay for ten hours before continuing their itinerary, as explained by a representative of this industry. The west coast of Svalbard remains ice-free year-round, and hence, for this region itinerary planning is hardly affected by sea ice variability

That is the thing about the ’20s warming. It didn’t last at high levels. More recent warming has gone much further.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 2, 2023 8:21 am

We are seeing a climate response that is the net result of all climate change causes, both natural and manmade. No one knows how much CO2 has affected climate change in the past 50 years. Especially you. But everyone likes to speculate. My answer is: “We don’t know what caused the recent climate change, but we do know it was harmless climate change”.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 7:56 am

CO2 changes in the past were the RESULT of other causes of climate change.

Manmade CO2 emissions are a CAUSE of climate change.

They are two different processes that happen at the same time, although manmade CO2 emissions are only a recent cause of climate change.

The natural causes of climate change that existed for 4.5 billion years still exist. The manmade CO2 emissions are a new cause of climate change.

No one knows what variables caused exactly what percentage of the climate change in our lifetimes.

Your claim that “recent climate change might have a strong natural component.” is speculation that can not be proven.

It is no more likely to be correct than a Climate Howler claim that recent climate change might have a strong manmade component.

How about the correct answer: “We don’t know?
We do now what climate change feels like because we live with it every year of our lives. We also know the global warming from 1975 to 2015 harmed no one. So we do know a lot of about climate change, that does not require wild guess predictions of the future climate by scientists, or anyone else.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Javier Vinós
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 2, 2023 8:13 am

It is not speculation. The early 20th-century warming was very intense and cannot be blamed on human causes, therefore it must be in a large part a natural contribution. Then we have the modern solar maximum. We might not know how solar activity affects climate, but we do know it does.

What is absurd is to say that recent climate change doesn’t have a significant natural contribution as the IPCC does.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 9:00 pm

The 1910 to 1940 warming was based on inaccurate measurements, with little input from the Southern Hemisphere, and very haphazard ocean measurements, almost entirely in Northern Hemisphere shipping lanes. The numbers are NOT fit for any scientific purposes or conclusions.

The global cooling from 1940 to 1975 is MUCH better evidence that CO2 is not a climate control knob.

The huge warming revision of those 1940 to 1975 data (after 1975) is evidence that government bureaucrat scientists can’t be trusted.

The claim that SO2 emissions offset CO2 emissions in the 1940 to 1975 falls apart faster than a cheap suitcase. There are too many periods of five years or more, starting in 1975, when the SO2 emissions and global average temperature did not move in opposite directions, AS SO2 FANS EXPECTED.

TWO PERIODS CAN THINK OF (THERE ARE MORE)

1975 TO 1980
SO2 EMISSIONS UP
GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERTURE UP (RATHER THAN DOWN, AS EXPECTED BY SO2 FANS)

2015 TO 2023
SO2 EMMISSIONS DOWN
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FLAT (RATHER THAN UP, AS EXPECTED BY SO2 FANS)

SO2 EMISSIONS ARE ONE OF MANY CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES, JUST LIKE CO2. NEITHER ONE IS A CLIMATE CONTROL KNOB.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE NET RESULT OF MANY CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES AND FEEDBACKS.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Javier Vinós
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 3, 2023 12:10 am

The numbers are NOT fit for any scientific purposes or conclusions.

That’s ridiculous. Science works with what it has. The Northern Hemisphere is where all the action takes place in terms of climate change. It cools more when there’s cooling, and it warms more when there’s warming. This is because of the way meridional transport is set, the way continents are distributed, and the way the northern polar vortex is weakened by the higher wave flux activity in the NH. So early 20th-century warming was a real phenomenon, as real as late 20th-century warming. It was not based on inaccurate measurements.

Henry Pool
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 14, 2023 8:07 am

Hi Javier! Excellent work here. Keep it up!
I must also say that your date of 1997 for the beginning of a cooler time naturally corresponds with my own work on Tmax global. I have 2037 as the beginning of a warming period, naturally.
I was so excited with your ideas that I translated this posting into Dutch for our friends in Holland. It will apparently appear on 17.2. 2023 on the website
https://www.climategate.nl/
I hope that is OK with you? It would be nice if after it is published you could come and visit the site and see what the people in Holland are saying. I will give you a direct link to the post later as a reply to my comment here. Note there are 4 buttons in the left hand bottom corner that you can click on that give you the translation of the comments in the language of your choice.
We hope to hear from you there. Note that most people in the Netherlands believe that most global warming is not natural.
Blessings.
Henry

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 1, 2023 11:39 pm

They don’t say that at all.

That’s what they defend. If you disagree please provide an official report where it is said that natural climate change may have contributed significantly to recent climate change. Otherwise, what it is said in AR5 still remains the official position:

The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

Solar and volcanic were considered insignificant. It is clearly an absurd claim, since paleoclimatology shows a very strong solar contribution to climate on centennial timescales, as I show and as paleoclimatologists defend.

There are no claims to the contrary.

You clearly have not read Dana Royer’s papers. An example:

Over the past 50 Myr, the Cenozoic climate trend is characterized by a deep-sea cooling of approximately 12 °C thought to have been forced by changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas composition…

Our extensive compilation of 370 revised estimates of Cenozoic CO2 levels (see Supplementary Information) reveals better agreement and documents a coherent pattern of CO2 change, with a clear connection to global temperature.

Beerling & Royer 2011

Their figure 1 is the same as my Cenozoic figure, only theirs was cleverly designed to hide the fundamental disagreement between temperature and CO2 over the Cenozoic, where most of the time they were going in opposite directions. In science, you are supposed to tell the truth, even if it goes against your theory.

I find your explanation of CO2 being forced weird. Radiative forcing is the change in energy flux in the atmosphere caused by natural or anthropogenic factors of climate change as measured by watts / meter². CO2 is not forced for increasing or being anthropogenic, it is just a cause for climate change whether it goes up or down.

Your claim that “Recent change is largely driven by CO2″ lacks sufficient support.

My book and presentation show the Holocene has been punctuated by a multitude of fast climate changes known to scientists for which the greenhouse gas theory has no explanation. There’s more to climate change than CO2, and there’s more to recent climate change than CO2. Natural climate change has been cleared as a suspect when we don’t know its contribution. If we don’t even understand the LIA, which took place a mere 300 years ago, why do we think we understand modern climate change?

denny
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 12:53 am

“There’s more to climate change than CO2, and there’s more to recent climate change than CO2”

That can’t be said enough. The official line is to bury it on page 28. It should be the headline. Maybe in a few years of non warming the media, politicians and IPCC will be forced to address it.

Excellent article. As always, an enjoyable read.

P.S. There are just too many solar papers to ignore completely as the IPCC has done.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 1:37 am

“Otherwise, what it is said in AR5 still remains the official position:”

What you said was
“Climate scientists writing these reports defend that all climate change since 1750 has a human origin.”

What they said was:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9). The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

Natural climate change can be up or down, or may add to zero over a period. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t any at any stage. They even concede that it could have been up to half the change 1951-2010. But they think it probably added up to small.

” It is clearly an absurd claim, since paleoclimatology shows a very strong solar contribution to climate on centennial timescales, as I show and as paleoclimatologists defend.”
What you show is a net contribution over periods thousands of years ago. That in no way says that it couldn’t have amounted to near zero in 1951-2010. In fact solar did not have much trend in that time.

“I find your explanation of CO2 being forced weird.”

It’s very simple. If CO2 is going to force climate change, something external has to be forcing CO2. Otherwise other factors within the system are driving it, and probably temperature too. The commonly quoted variation with glaciation is universally accepted to be CO2 responding to temperature itself, via solubility. It is not driving temperature. The temperature changes are far larger than anything the CO2 change could provide. All that proves is that something else (orbital) was driving temperature.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 2, 2023 2:33 am

They even concede that it could have been up to half the change 1951-2010.

That is not what the error bars in their figures show. You are just discussing linguistics here, not science. What they defend is shown in the results they present in their graphs.

In fact solar did not have much trend in that time.

You assume it is the trend that matters when I defend what matters is that the modern solar maximum was the longest period of above-average solar activity in over 600 years. A solar contribution cannot be ruled out since the Sun was in an unusually long period of high activity.

something external has to be forcing CO2

I’ve never seen anybody referring to CO2 changes as being forced. That’s unusual. CO2 goes up and down due to different causes. The cause doesn’t matter to climate, the changes do.

variation with glaciation is universally accepted to be CO2 responding to temperature

Obviously not universally. I know of several papers defending orbital changes provide the signal and CO2 does most of the forcing responsible for the temperature change during deglaciations. What is almost universal is the presentation of Pleistocene’s Antarctic core agreement between temperature and CO2 as proof that CO2 drives climate.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 12:24 pm

 What is almost universal is the presentation of Pleistocene’s Antarctic core agreement between temperature and CO2 as proof that CO2 drives climate.”
Quote please.
I don’t believe it.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 3, 2023 12:41 am

Quote by Richard Alley:

The effect of the orbital features on the total sunlight reaching the Earth is almost zero; the sunshine is just moved between areas and seasons. But, the whole world cools into an ice age, and the whole world warms coming out of an ice age, despite half the world getting less sun when the other half gets more. And, so far, all the explanations of this require the effects of the CO2, which beautifully explain it.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 4, 2023 1:48 am

In that same article, he explained:

““There is no way for the orbits to directly change CO2 – a bit more sun in the northern summer melts ice, but doesn’t immediately cause CO2 to change. So, CO2 must be a feedback. Because the amount of sunshine – and the amount of ice – have direct and immediate effects on temperature, there should be places on Earth in which any change in CO2 lags rather than leads the orbital cause and the temperature change. 

This should not bother anyone. It often does, but it shouldn’t. The analogy I sometimes use is that, if I overspend my credit card and go into debt, interest will kick in and make my debt bigger. The interest lags debt – first I go into debt, then I pay interest, then I go further into debt. Pretty much everyone understands that this is a sensible, if unpleasant situation. When the orbits affect ice and temperature, this changes other things that, in turn, affect CO2, which, in turn, affects temperature some more – similarly sensible if the full story is understood.”

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 2, 2023 12:36 am

Unforced change is possible

Yes, unforced climate change is possible. This would be a climate change that takes place without being driven by radiative changes at the top of the atmosphere. There are some examples, like oceanic oscillations. Since the climate is defined as the 30-year average in weather variables, it is clear that oceanic oscillations cause unforced climate change.

But on the centennial to millennial timescale unforced climate change is quite uncommon, as it requires a prolonged or very significant change in the energy transfer between climate compartments. It only happens under special circumstances. The sudden release of meltwater from Lakes Ojibway and Agassiz 8200 years ago constitutes such an example.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 2:05 am

But on the centennial to millennial timescale unforced climate change is quite uncommon, as it requires a prolonged or very significant change in the energy transfer between climate compartments. It only happens under special circumstances.”

Indeed so, for sustained climate change (in one direction). That is why the special circumstance of massive emissions of CO2 is the suspect here.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 2, 2023 3:00 am

I understand why CO2 is the suspect. But science is supposed to be a very exigent tribunal not dedicated to finding convenient scapegoats. Climate is very complicated and the evidence has not been properly appraised in the rush to reach a “consensus agreement” (the horror) in order to justify an energy transition. That’s how scientists have made their worse mistakes in the past, by bowing to external pressures. Think Lysenkoism or eugenics.

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 8:47 am

As noted, it seems fair to suspect CO2 plays a role, however, what really bothers me is the claim that it’s only CO2. (Or even, mostly CO2.) The clip of Alley testifying before Congress that “we’ve looked at everything else…” is perhaps the single most acute example of unmitigated scientific hubris I’ve ever seen. Such unwarranted certainty! At any, I’ve quite enjoyed reading your comments over the years at Judith’s blog, and am happy to have learned quite a bit here.

rip

michel
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 2, 2023 12:49 am

The argument is that this time its different.

In the past there have been swings in temperature and in CO2 content. In the past there is no evidence that CO2 has had any particular effect on temperature.

But at the moment we have a warming for the last 50 or so years. This warming is no different from earlier warmings in scale or speed which were not driven by CO2 increases. But this one supposedly is driven by the recent increases.

The problem with the distant temperature fluctuations is that they are not very finely grained, so its impossible to say whether 50 year fluctuations of the present sort happened. But we do have fine grained records from the early 20C, and they do show a warming which is indistinguishable in scale and speed from the recent one.

I don’t see the logic of it. If there is no account of what caused the early 20C warming (still less the MWP), but we know it happened absent CO2 increases then how can we be sure that its a CO2 increase that has caused the present warming?

And its not just an academic question. The real question is how can we be sure enough to justify all the proposed policies and massive changes in energy use and living patterns that the activists are demanding.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Andy May
February 2, 2023 8:35 am

The IPCC announced in 1995 that all natural causes of climate change were “noise”. The only question is why they do did not make that announcement in 1988. My guess was they wanted to appear to have been studying natural causes of climate change from 1988 to 1995 … before their arbitrary claim that natural causes of climate change didn’t matter.

Each IPCC report since 1995 is about the same:
‘Assuming global warming is manmade and dangerous, we predict that future global warming will be manmade and dangerous.’

That’s circular reasoning.
The IPCC is a political organization that relies on circular reasoning for climate predictions (aka science fraud).

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 2, 2023 5:29 am

Recent change is largely driven by CO2 forcing. That is possible because CO2 is forced. It is rising because we are digging up and burning fossil carbon. That never happened before about 1750.”

If CO2 is the driver then it shouldn’t matter where it comes from! Rising CO2 should drive rising temperatures, regardless of the source of the CO2.

Yet historically, this is not the case. Rising CO2 does not historically cause rising temperatures.

Your claim is actually nothing more than “natural CO2 good, man-made CO2 bad”. That’s religious dogma, not science.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 2, 2023 8:42 am

“Rising CO2 does not historically cause rising temperatures”
WRONG
Rising CO2 always causes rising temperatures
Over 400ppm, however, they are likely to be small changes and difficult to measure, because there are many other climate change causes. And CO2 has a logarithmic effect.

Climate change is the net result of ALL causes of climate change.
Oceans releasing or absorbing natural CO2 are RESULTS of climate change that cause changes in ocean temperatures.

If CO2 is a greenhouse gas in a laboratory spectroscopy experiment It is also a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere impede Earth’s ability to cool itself. That is true now and was true in the past. The CO2 does nothing argument is likely to be just as inaccurate as the CO2 does everything argument.

Mike
February 1, 2023 8:51 pm

We need to search?

Bob
February 1, 2023 9:08 pm

I think this is really important stuff. I especially appreciate that such a big effort is being made to help the average guy understand this really complicated subject. Thanks to all.

Streetcred
February 1, 2023 9:38 pm

THAT is awesome !

Richard Greene
February 1, 2023 10:53 pm

The IPCC was set up to predict rapid, dangerous global warming blamed on human CO2 emissions, and that’s exactly what they do. They made the job easier in 1995 by arbitrarily dismissing all natural causes of climate change as “noise”

“Despite claims to the contrary by these authors, the data shows that most of the time temperature and CO2 were moving in opposite directions for millions of years.” JV

That claim is irrelevant. It looks at CO2 when it was a feedback to changes of ocean temperature, by Henry’s Law. The balance of CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere would shift due to fairly large changes of average ocean temperatures.

Adding manmade CO2 to the atmosphere, with CO2 level up about +50% since 1850, is a DIFFERNT cause of climate change variable, It is a cause of climate change NOT the result of climate change from other causes/

Claims about solar energy effects on the climate are refuted by NASA claims the TOA solar energy has declined slightly in the satellite age — about 50 years. Therefore, TOA solar energy could not be responsible for the global warming from 1975 to 2020.

“The winter gatekeeper hypothesis provides a good explanation for the surface temperature evolution over the past 120 years, indicating that recent climate change might have a strong natural component.” JV

No, it does not explain warming from 1910 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1975, warming from 1975 to 2015, and no change from 2015 to 2023.

“We should expect less warming in the 21st century even if CO2 levels continue increasing. When solar activity becomes high again, Arctic cooling and Arctic sea ice growth should occur. Nobody is expecting this and it will be a big surprise when it happens. It might take place in less than two decades” JV

Not one human being has ever accurately predicted long term climate trends. I doubt if JV will be the first one.

Climate change is the net result of a variety of natural and manmade causes. No one knows what percentage of the 1975 to 2015 warming was natural, and what percentage was manmade. Many guess, but no one knows.

There is strong evidence that manmade CO2 emissions have increased the greenhouse effect in the past 50 years. By exactly how much, no one knows, many people guess anyway.

The claim that CO2 causes “everything”, and the alternate claim that CO2 causes “nothing” are both very unlikely to be true.

The correct answer is “we don’t know exactly what CO2 does”.

But whatever CO2 does has been harmless at worst — beneficial if you consider plant growth and warmer winters in high latiude nations.

My daily list of 12 to 24 good climate science and energy articles often includes articles from this website, but not this one.
Honest Climate Science and Energy

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Javier Vinós
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 2, 2023 12:20 am

The balance of CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere would shift due to fairly large changes of average ocean temperatures.

That’s only one factor, and it might not be the main one, at least for some long periods of time. The Late Eocene cooling toward Antarctica freezing (figure 5 above) was characterized by increasing CO2 levels, likely to be from increasing volcanic activity and the great die-off of an entire continent. All fluxes are important in determining CO2 changes.

TOA solar energy could not be responsible for the global warming from 1975 to 2020.

This doesn’t say anything about indirect solar effects. And we know they exist and are mighty since they change the rotation speed of the planet.

Not one human being has ever accurately predicted long term climate trends.

That includes the IPCC and its models. Further evidence that we don’t understand climate change. Yet, here we are, changing the energy system of the world supposedly because of it.

To be scientific, a theory has to be falsifiable, and for that, it has to make predictions about data not used in the making of the theory and preferably unknown. The future is perfect for that. If the evidence turns out to be incompatible with a theory, then it is wrong as formulated.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 8:47 am

Not one human being has ever accurately predicted long term climate trends.

“That includes the IPCC and its models. Further evidence that we don’t understand climate change. Yet, here we are, changing the energy system of the world supposedly because of it.” JV

The recent escalation from climate change scaremongering since 1979 to Nut Zero a few years ag, is insane. Nothing leftists believe in is falsifiable — they have closed minds unless they decide to move further to the left.

Steve Case
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 2, 2023 1:29 am

“No one knows …Many guess, but no one knows…no one knows, many people guess anyway…The correct answer is “we don’t know exactly what CO2 does”
_________________________________

That reminded me of this one:

     There are known knowns. 
     These are things we know that we know. 
     There are known unknowns. 
     That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. 
     But there are also unknown unknowns. 
     There are things we don’t know we don’t know. 
                                                                      Donald Rumsfeld

David Solan
February 2, 2023 12:51 am

  In Dr. Javier Vinós’ presentation, he initially reviews the basic narratives on the
greenhouse effect of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and of
many other spokespeople for our current climate change hysteria. As he said: “First,
I looked to the IPCC for an answer. They are supposed to have all the answers about
climate change.”

He describes the IPCC’s rationale as follows: 

    On a planet without greenhouse gases, the shortwave
    solar radiation is returned as longwave thermal
    radiation from the surface. When greenhouse gases are
    present in the atmosphere, they absorb and emit
    longwave radiation. This process causes the average
    height of emission to space to move higher. If the
    planet has an atmosphere with a positive lapse rate
    where the temperature decreases as the height
    increases, as the troposphere does, the surface must
    warm as the average emission altitude moves upward to
    return all the energy received from the Sun to space.
    Doubling the amount of CO2 results in a higher average
    emission altitude and increased surface warming.

   What’s wrong with this IPCC logic? First of all, it only deals with radiative
effects. But after a star’s radiation comes in, presumably reaching a world’s
surface, thereafter these radiative effects play a very small role in determining heat
balances near the surface of any world with a substantial atmosphere.

  Next, the IPCC correctly attributes the warming of the surface of many worlds to
their star’s incoming shortwave radiation. Now here is where the SHTF. It then
assumes that the surface heat is returned as longwave radiation into outer space. At
the top of an atmosphere, that is indeed how a world’s heat leaves it. And, if a
world has no atmosphere, its surface heat does indeed leave, promptly, through this
radiative mechanism. But in worlds with a substantial atmosphere, at the bottom of
their atmospheres, with or without greenhouse gases? NO WAY! The heat is lost there,
almost completely, through conduction into the atmosphere touching that surface. The
atmosphere there is Angstroms from that surface, and conduction is where, maybe, 95%
of that heat energy initially goes.

  Greenhouse gases (mainly water vapor on Earth) might also have an effect in the
first few millimeters above the surface, where there is immediate emitted infrared
radiation absorption, but greenhouse gases thereafter, higher up, have virtually no
effect in blocking that heat transfer to outer space. All they do in the lower atmosphere
is absorb infrared for, at most, a few microseconds, which molecular vibrational energy
thus produced then transduces itself, through molecular collisions, into heating
the surrounding atmosphere (no matter what gas it is composed of, CO2, Ar, or
whatever), which then, slowly, manages to make its way ever higher until it radiates
into space. Those few microseconds don’t amount to a hill of beans as far as the
warming of the Earth is concerned. And it is likely that that infrared would have
been absorbed by other gases in our lower atmosphere anyway. And, anyway, the heat
content of that lower atmosphere infrared radiation amounts to another hill of beans
relative to the heat content of the surrounding lower atmosphere. CO2, at 0.04% in
our tenuous (compared to the dirt and water material of the solid Earth) atmosphere,
can’t do a darn thing to affect our climate. The greenhouse effect is a bunch of
hooey. It does not exist!

  As, indeed, Dr. Javier Vinós went on to show later in that same presentation.

David Solan

Tim Gorman
Reply to  David Solan
February 2, 2023 3:01 pm

When you are measuring radiation is units of watts/meter^2 you are describing what is sometimes called radiation intensity. Radiation that can be measured in watts/meter^2 is also subject to the inverse square law. If you have 1 watt/m^2 at the surface then that becomes 1/100 w/m^2 (i.e. 1/10^2)at a distance of 10m from the surface.

Of course you have to do a 3-dimensional integral around any point in the atmosphere to find the total irradiation at that point. Something like the 4 * ∫ (altitude/cosθ)^2 dθ dⱷ where θ describes the path angle from directly below the point out and goes from 0 to π/2 and ⱷ (a circle around the point) goes from 0 to π/2. (multiply by 4 to get the contribution from all four quadrants) This is just off the cuff and is admittedly incorrect because I didn’t allow for the angle of incidence at the point of interest (i.e. at π/4 1/2 the radiation will be horizontal and 1/2 will be vertical).

I’m not sure why this is never considered in doing radiation balance in the atmosphere. Even if there were no absorbing gasses in the atmosphere, the radiation intensity will decrease by the inverse square law as you move away from the surface of the earth. It’s why the sun radiates  63 × 106 W·m^2 but the earth only gets about 1370 w/m^2.

Bob Weber
February 2, 2023 1:35 am

“To prevent the tropics from continuously warming and the rest of the planet from continuously cooling, heat must be transported poleward.

This heat transport is responsible for what we call weather and the hydrological cycle.”

Climate science has known about poleward heat transport and the hydrological cycle for many decades, so what is new here? Naming poleward heat transport and associated weather effects now as the most important climate change variable is just jingoistic tautology.

Heat is transported because the tropical ocean absorbs sunlight, causing it to warm and expand and push outward from the equator into areas north and south that are cooler from receiving less sunlight, and when that happens, it prevents tropical overheating, an active solar response.

Javier Vinos’ might as well say outer space is the most important climate change variable, after all, the sunlight that warms the Earth shines through space first, ie, is ‘transported’ through space before it gets to Earth. This should make outer space the more foundational climate transport medium than water and air, using Vinos’ energy transport logic.

Javier Vinos’ contention that Earth’s climate is ordered by solar activity via the stratosphere and the microscopic changes in the length of day is completely bonkers, off the rails in fact, when it is very clear solar cycles reorder the tropical ocean.

comment image

“When solar activity becomes high again, Arctic cooling and Arctic sea ice growth should occur. Nobody is expecting this and it will be a big surprise when it happens. It might take place in less than two decades.”

Javier Vinos’ is already falsified. Arctic cooling leading to a slight increase in sea ice has already occurred since 2018, as I predicted based on low solar activity and the La Nina.

comment image

Bob Weber
Reply to  Andy May
February 2, 2023 9:08 am

…he is talking about actual growth. You are talking about something else.”

Willis’ ice plot shows real actual ice growth >2018 when no one expected it but me.

I’m not talking about something else, you are mistaken. The ideas I present connect.

“When solar activity becomes high again, Arctic cooling and Arctic sea ice growth should occur. Nobody is expecting this and it will be a big surprise when it happens. It might take place in less than two decades.” – Javier [my emphasis]

No, the actual case of Arctic cooling and ice growth occurs from a low solar activity driven lack or reduction of warm water inflow during La Nina.

I already tied the tropical state earlier to the solar cycle, and now using this image I made several years ago, can tie the tropical state to sea ice via cross-correlation with Nino3, which shows NH sea ice extent lags Nino3 inversely by 5-6 months:

comment image

Javier is falsified again (there are other red flags) because he claimed the opposite of what actually happens. Arctic ice declined from warmer tropical ocean inflow driven by high solar activity, following ice growth & stability after low solar activity cycles, not by what he said.

Ice declined after 1935 as a result of the Solar Modern Maximum warming the ocean:

comment image

My work involves determining solar activity thresholds affecting different climate areas. The v2 SN decadal thresholds for sea ice melt/growth were derived by me in 2020:

SH Sea Ice Ext/Area grows SN < 91.7
NH Sea Ice Extent grows SN < 92.4
NH Sea Ice Area grows SN < 100.2

This absolutely falsifies Javier’s statement to the contrary. He is right nobody is expecting what he said, why should they?

After the Solar Modern Maximum the Arctic sea ice loss percentage change was still low compared to the total amount of seasonal ice extent, so Arctic ice is very resilient if anything, and is not going to be 100% open unless many more Solar Modern Maximum periods follow. High solar cycles will return someday and melt more sea ice.

The solar maximum El Nino(s) for this solar cycle will likely temporarily reverse the recent modest Arctic ice growth since 2018, and that SC25 downtrend will likely reverse again in 2029/30 to ice growth into the solar minimum as it did after 2018.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Bob Weber
February 2, 2023 10:06 am

Ice declined after 1935 as a result of the Solar Modern Maximum warming the ocean

Ice did not decline after 1935, it increased between 1935 and 1970. The trend is positive until the early 80s. Your information is simply not good enough. The Russians were taking a lot of aerial photographs at the time. You can translate this peer-reviewed article if you want to know.
https://climatol.eu/reclim/reclim16a.pdf

comment image

Tony Heller has also shown a lot of info on Arctic sea-ice growth prior to 1979.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 2, 2023 5:07 pm

My information from HadiSST2 is good enough as it also shows an ice increase for the 1960-70 period and the observed inter-decadal variability, the ups and downs, while tracking the observed trends in your plot.

The sea ice in your plot’s 1970 Historical is similar to what it was in 1935, considering the margin of error, and there was an overall decline since 1935 as I had said. There is no way to know how good the starting data is for the 2016 reconstruction so it is questionable to compare 1935 to 1970.

The sea ice in the 1960-70s varied largely from very large positive/negative anomaly SST swings during SC#20:

http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif

I have no confidence in your graphic that considers an ice-free Arctic by 2040 by an emissions scenario, since emissions have nothing to do with causing climate change. Are you now saying you are a CO2 warmist?

Your problem is you said Arctic cooling and sea ice growth will come from high solar activity, when it does the opposite. You are wrong and falsified.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Bob Weber
February 3, 2023 12:53 am

The 1935-1970 increase in sea ice is well recognized in many sectors. Sea ice follows temperature and meridional transport, not solar activity.

comment image

Climate change is a lot more complex than you think it is.

D Boss
February 2, 2023 4:52 am

I haven’t the time to delve into this seemingly excellent presentation in depth right now, however I have something relevant to mention regards the IPCC dogma regarding correlation between CO2 and temperature. It is a manufactured fraud when you consider the official “adjustments” to the historical temperature records. See the following post for a clear demonstration of this fraud, with data sources so anyone can check the veracity:

https://realclimatescience.com/2021/03/noaa-temperature-adjustments-are-doing-exactly-what-theyre-supposed-to/

I provide a copy of the most damning chart of the evidence of this fraud here showing the adjustments to the temperature record from 1900 to 2020 against CO2 concentration.

There is no need to produce rheems of other evidence, as this completely dismantles the narrative of CO2 as control knob when the official records have been “adjusted” to form a straight line when the adjustments are compared against CO2 concentration!

It is indeed “man made” climate change, by altering the data to fit the hypothesis, which as you all should know, is not “science” or the scientific method.

USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-Vs-CO2-1900-2020-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-vs-CO2-1.png
Joseph Zorzin
February 2, 2023 6:17 am

“a little-known phenomenon called natural climate change”

I think that’s a forbidden topic by the Holy Mother Climate Catastrophe Church. Using that term, you’ll probably get excommunicated by that church.

I’ve only recently begun watching Tom Nelson’s videos and like them. I like the way he jumps right in to the topic.

Joseph Zorzin
February 2, 2023 6:19 am

“Most of the warming is supposedly produced by poorly known feedbacks, whose contribution to the warming cannot be measured because it cannot be distinguished from the signal.”

And that’s suppossed to be settled science?

Ulric Lyons
February 2, 2023 7:47 am

“But four of the biggest ones took place when solar activity was very low and are separated by multiples of 2500 years.”

The Homeric Minimum isn’t part of a grand solar minimum series, they began from 2225 BC, 1365 BC, 500 BC, and 1215 AD, every 863 years on average. There were though a pair of longer centennial minima from 720 BC and 620 BC.

Every other warm AMO phase is during a centennial solar minimum, that’s why its long term mean frequency is 55 years.

Negative NAO/AO during low solar periods is obviously true, but negative NAO/AO is directly associated with slower trade winds. See the frequency of El Nino episodes during the coldest part of the Dalton Minimum 1807-1821:

https://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/historic-el-nino-events

Last edited 1 month ago by Ulric Lyons
Renee
February 2, 2023 8:57 am

IPCC’s figure from their technical summary showing how temperatures and CO2 covary since the Eocene. Quite different from Javier’s.

9FA9479D-705F-44B2-9271-977A40AFC1B1.jpeg
Javier Vinós
Reply to  Andy May
February 2, 2023 12:13 pm

It is not really worth much effort. The IPCC is famous for its science cherry-picking. All CO2 proxies I have checked show a big increase at the time of Antarctica freezing. Somehow they have managed to erase that in the figure.

Renee
Reply to  Andy May
February 2, 2023 1:34 pm

Andy, I agree the uncertainty ranges on CO2 older than 1 my are huge (+/-500 ppm). So how meaningful is their loess fit of the raw data? The other really sneaky thing they do is present a pseudo log scale on the x-axis, time.

rxc6422
February 2, 2023 11:43 am

This is the work that the IPCC should have been doing since the beginning – identifying all of the important phenomena that affect climate, and explaining how they work, with quantification, if possible. Without understanding the important phenomena, the calculations are worse than useless, because they only provide a partial explanation of what is happening. I suspect that there are other phenomena remaining to be discovered, including biologics. Quantifying these phenomena is another grand step. Until this all of the effort to characterize the phenomena is done, the CO2+feedback arguments will mislead our entire civilization into taking some very unwise actions.

Unfortunately, the IPCC was given the remit to validate the CO2 argument, based on political considerations, and that is what they have tried to do. We see now that this was wrong.

Rud Istvan
February 2, 2023 12:47 pm

Late to this thread, but want to thank Andy for providing it. Good that Javier’s ideas are getting broader exposure. Good that a simplified book is forthcoming. Good that natural variability is on the table. Even IPCC back handedly admitted it. In the SPM to AR4 WG1 their figure 4 on attribution admits it in a round about way. Posted on that here previously.

Once natural variation is recognized, the attribution problem becomes insurmountable. It cannot be avoided because of the unavoidable parameterization of climate models to best hindcast (a CMIP required output). Attribution to CO2 ignoring a natural component is why models run hot. Posted on that here before also.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 2, 2023 9:19 pm

Computer games (models) ae deliberately “hot” to scare people
They are programmed to scare people
Programmed by bureaucrats hired to scare people
Their bosses in government want to scare people
Leftists politicians want to scare people
What is contained inside the models is irrelevant
The predictions were determined in advance of model programming

Only the Russians, with their INM model, reuse to follow the directions to support the official wild guess ECS narrative, from the 1979 Charney Report, arbitrarily modified a few years ago by the IPCC to be even worse than the old +1.5 to +4.5 degrees C. ECS (Now +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C.)

New ECS wild guess replaces the old ECS wild guess.
That’s modern climate junk science.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Renee
February 2, 2023 2:22 pm

Javier, yes CO2 does not parallel Holocene global temperatures and is even worse when compared to Arctic temperatures. However, there does seem to be a good correlation with Antarctic temperatures. This is also true of the past 800,000 years in ice cores where CO2 trends tend to follow Antarctic ice core isotope trends. Perhaps CO2 trends are more related to Antarctic regional trends then elsewhere.

4355206A-38B7-47A8-9FAB-14A1D1B93828.jpeg
Javier Vinós
Reply to  Renee
February 3, 2023 1:06 am

CO2 works in reverse in Antarctica, so the correspondence there indicates a common cause. Natural CO2 levels and Antarctica temperature are both controlled by the Southern Ocean insolation. That huge mass of water is what gets us out of a glaciation and could very well be what gets us into the next one.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Andy May
February 3, 2023 5:35 am

Interesting reference, thanks.
Van Wijngaarden and Happer also explain it.

Hatter Eggburn
February 3, 2023 9:15 am

Too complicated

Hatter Eggburn
February 4, 2023 2:19 pm

Javier thanks for your helpful presentation and interview with Tom Nelson.

When a SSW (sudden stratospheric warming) happens – near the poles – presumably such an event must represent a very large venting of energy out to space. So are SSW’s of climatic significant in the context of the winter gatekeeper mechanism?

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
February 5, 2023 8:31 am

SSWs indeed increase the OLR from the polar night region, but not to the point of making a big difference. SSWs happen on average every other year in the NH, and the monthly OLR analysis does not allow the identification of SSWs in OLR data.

Pat Smith
February 6, 2023 7:04 am

Dr Vinos, are you able to make a prediction about the warming trend over the next 20 years? One of your charts makes it look as though we might be in for a period of cooling.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Pat Smith
February 6, 2023 2:27 pm

Hi Pat, predictions about climate are hard. Nevertheless, the hypothesis is consistent with a lack of warming or even some cooling over the next two decades. Nothing dramatic though, just not what the IPCC projects.

Henry Pool
February 13, 2023 1:32 pm

Hi Javier! Excellent work here. Keep it up!
I must also say that your date of 1997 for the beginning of a cooler time naturally corresponds with my own work on Tmax global. I have 2037 as the beginning of a warming period, naturally.
I was so excited with your ideas that I translated this posting into Dutch for our friends in Holland. It will apparently appear on 17.2. 2023 on the website
https://www.climategate.nl/
I hope that is OK with you? It would be nice if after it is published you could come and visit the site and see what the people in Holland are saying. I will give you a direct link to the post later as a reply to my comment here. Note there are 4 buttons in the left hand bottom corner that you can click on that give you the translation of the comments in the language of your choice.
We hope to hear from you there. Note that most people in the Netherlands believe that most global warming is not natural.
Blessings.
Henry

Last edited 1 month ago by Henry Pool
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights