Tag Archives: Ban of Straws

Nov 29 2018

Global Cooling – not Global Warming, that we should Fear the Most.


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Nov 29, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

It is incredibly important to understand that as the weather turns bitterly cold in the north, people will begin to migrate south. This not merely cause the Greeks to become the Sea Peoples, but during the Year without a Summer in 1816 even in the States when six inches of snow fell in June and every month of the year had a hard frost, people began to migrate. The temperatures had dropped to as low as 40 degrees in July and August in New York City during 1816. People also called it ‘Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death’ and the ‘Poverty Year.’ This is what I keep pointing out that cold is what kills society and creates poverty – not warming.

The Year without a Summer sent people fleeing from New England states in search of warmer weather and fertile soils both south and west. It was the weather that began to cause migration in the United States outside of the 13 original states. Thousands of New England families gave up their farms, packed their belongings into wagons and joined the throngs traipsing over rivers and mountains to Pennsylvania and the Ohio River Valley, which includes Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky.

Indeed, between 1810 and 1820, Maine lost as many as 15,000 people. Sixty Vermont towns lost population during that decade as well. The population of 60 more Vermont towns stayed the same while the U.S. population grew 32%. When we examine Massachusetts, we can see that this state gained only 50,000 people from 1810-20, while Ohio gained five times as many. The Massachusetts Legislature tried to hold on to its citizens by passing a homestead act that gave settlers 100 acres of land for $5.

Even during the American Revolution, when John Adams set out to travel to Philadelphia, it was bitterly cold and there was a foot or more of snow covered the landscape which had blanketed Massachusetts from one end of the province to the other. Beneath the snow, after weeks of severe cold, the ground was frozen solid to a depth of two feet. Packed ice in the road made the journey very hazardous. In a letter to his wife, John Adams wrote:

“Indeed I feel not a little out of Humour, from Indisposition of Body. You know, I cannot pass a Spring, or fall, without an ill Turn — and I have had one these four or five Weeks — a Cold, as usual. Warm Weather, and a little Exercise, with a little Medicine, I suppose will cure me as usual. … Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

On September 8th, 1816, Jefferson described the weather during the Year without a Summer in a letter to Albert Gallitan:

We have had the most extraordinary year of drought and cold ever known in the history of America. In June, instead of 3¾ inches, our average of rain for that month, we had only 1/3 of an inch; in August, instead of 9 1/6 inches our average, we had only 8/10 of an inch; and it still continues. The summer too has been as cold as a moderate winter. In every state North of this there has been frost in every month of the year; in this state we had none in June and July but those of August killed much corn over the mountains. The crop of corn through the Atlantic states will probably be less than 1/3 of an ordinary one, that of tobacco still less, and of mean quality.

It is Global Cooling – not Global Warming, that we should fear the most. While 1816 was the year we had a major volanic eruption, it also came during the Little Ice Age with Solar Minimum

Nov 28 2018

Scientists Want to Synthetically Create a Volcanic Winter – Are they Just Nuts?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Nov 28, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

Believe it or not, pretend Scientists are actuall proposing to create a synthetic Volcanic Winter by spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earth’s atmosphere the same as a volcanoe when it erupts. These pretend research scientists at Harvard and Yale universities have published in the journal Environmental Research Letters proposing to inject an aerosol (SAI) to reduce the rate of global warming. They have propsed a completely unproven attempt to alter the planet using a technique involving spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earth’s lower stratosphere at altitudes as high as 12 miles. They argue to deliver the sulfates with specially designed high-altitude aircraft, balloons or large naval-style guns. To accomplish this they want $3.5 billion, with annual costs of $2.25 billion a year over.

This is exactly as the chemtrail conspiracy theory which is based on the belief that long-lasting condensation trails are “chemtrails” consisting of chemical or biological agents are left in the sky by high-flying aircraft that are sprayed for undisclosed reasons. It seems that the pretend scientists have taken the chemtrail theories to a new level. They say they are only dimming the sun. Guess they have no clue about weather history and volcanic winters, Guess shattering 150 year cold records for thanksgiving is still too warm for these people.

Climate Change is not just simply that there is a unusual cold storm or heat wave. Yet these people harp on each individual event as proof of their theory. Real climate change has to do with shifting patterns of weather and the progressive long-term trend. Their forecasts are based upon assuming whatever trend is in motion will remain in motion. That is a fatal flaw in analysis if we are talking about markets or weather. They really need to understand that there are cycles to start with

Nov 28 2018

Climate Change – More than Global Warming


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

RE-Posted Nov 28, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

There is a lot more to Climate Change than the dire predictions that we will be eating each other by now. The Sahara Desert was once lush and green. Then the weather systems shifted and the once fertile land turns to desert. The Sphinx is believed to have the face of Khafra of the 4th dynasty during the Old Kingdom which was carved perhaps around 2500BC. Some believe that the Sphinx predates the Egyptians and was actually a lion because there appear to be what some claim are water erosion marks. If true, then the original Sphinx may have existed even as far back as 10,000BC when a Lion would have faced the constellation, Leo. We do know that the Sahara was lush and tropical perhaps as late as 6,000 years ago. Curiously, this is about the length of recorded history. The stories of Noah seem to predate this period of recorded history and might have been linked to dramatic climate change. The story of Noah was even celebrated in Anatolia (modern Turkey) on the coinage of the Roman Empire.

The weather has been changing in the desert. It is now in bloom once again. Indeed, there have been recent discoveries which confirm that the Arabian Peninsula was once a lush place. Tuthmosis IV was the 8th Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt, who ruled in approximately the 14th century BC. The dream Tuthmosis IV took place when he was a prince. He dreamt that he stopped to rest in the shadow of the Sphinx during a hunting expedition in the desert. While asleep, the Sphinx spoke to him, saying that he would become king if he cleared away the sand that all but buried the Sphinx. When he became king, Tuthmosis IV cleared the sand and erected a stele that tells the story of his dream.

There have been elephant tusks discovered and scientists have also uncovered 10,000 ancient lake and river beds across the Arabian Peninsula. All of this confirms that the climate was very different. What we do know is that the tropical belt has been moving northward once again. It was previously over the Sahara about 6,000 years ago. There are also cave drawings showing abundant wildlife in the Sahara.

The question that arises is that the climate change we are witnessing is certainly not caused by humans. It has happened before many times. It is getting colder in the northern regions and what was desert is starting to bloom.

What we do know is that Northern Africa was invaded by the Sea People who were probably Greeks forced to flee because of Climate Change. Perhaps we are witnessing similar events over the next 20 years of the dryer and colder weather in the north which compels many to flee to the south.

Nov 27 2018

Global Cooling is Real – Major Temperature Low 2046?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Nov 27, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

While NASA has now confirmed that the outer atmosphere is getting cooler, it seems desperately insane for people to keep denying the possibility the Global Cooling is taking place rather than Global Warming when the former brings famine and the latter brings economic expansion as civilizations rise. The rise of Rome was due to global warming as was the case after the Dark Age when they call that the Medieval Warming Period which was 950 to 1300AD.

The concern from just a technical model perspective is that the warming period we have had post-1600 and the low of the Little Ice Age has not exceeded that of the Medieval Warming Period. If we simply look at this chart from a technical perspective, it appears more that we are in a grand downtrend for the past 6,000 years. This is deeply concerning for we tend to have these periods where civilization turns downward. It would be very nice if we just had authoritative research funded to explore Global Cooling to save society rather than this nonsense of Global Warming just to raise money for politicians who NEVER get enough.

In Australia, with one week from summer, it is still snowing on Victoria. In fact, one of the top NASA scientists has broken camp and warned that the surface temperature of the sun has collapsed so much, he fears a new Ice Age is upon us. Meanwhile, this has been the COLDEST Thanksgiving in 150 years!

What we must understand is this has gone beyond just breaking records for one-day events. This time around, it’s not just the severity of the cold that’s getting to people. It’s also the DURATION! The most reliable computer model projections have shown that the Arctic air has moved all the way down into Texas. Indeed, here in Tampa, the temperature is about 10 degrees below normal at times. The decline in the energy output of the sun has been far more rapid than most expected. This could perhaps be a warning sign that we will make a new lower low or retest the low temperatures on a sustained basis that match the Little Ice Age.

The Little Ice Age marked a period of cool summers and bitterly cold winters to New England. There was the Great Snow of 1717, which buried houses and resulted in having to organize search parties that were even lost while looking for buried survivors. Them there was the fame Cold Friday of 1810. People actually died in their homes as the temperature suddenly plummeted more than 60 degrees in less than a day. It was years later when Henry David Thoreau’s mother recalled how dishes froze as fast as they were washed even right next to the fire.

The Post Office even issued commemorative stamps in 1976 noting that winter event. Washington and his troops suffered more in Morristown, N.J., during the Hard Winter of 1779-80. Violent snowstorms had battered the Northeast, and both Boston and New York harbors were completely frozen over. The weather made it impossible to bring supplies to the men, many of whom had no coats or even shoes. They couldn’t even eat for days at a time. The soldiers finally mutinied in early May, though an officer persuaded them to abandon their rebellion. Just as the weather had defeated Napoleon, weather nearly defeated the American Revolution.

If this trend continues during the next winter, then we have exceeded any short-term reactionary trend and the weather appears poised to continue to get colder going into the distant future. Socrates was projecting that the peak on this cycle aligned with the ECM 2015.75. This is a Longitudinal Cycle, not Transverse. That means peak to bottom varies. This short-term wave should be a 13-year decline from 2015 making it 2028 initially. After that, if we see colder winters beyond 2028, then the next low will be with the peak in the ECM 2032. There is a SERIOUS RISK that we are looking at the final low coming in during the period of 2046.

Nov 23 2018

We Were Supposed to be Resorting to Cannibalism by Now from Global Warming


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Nov 23, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

Despite the forecasts 20 years ago that snow would be a thing of the past, the last three winters have been getting progressively colder and nastier. Back in 1975, Newsweek predicted we were going into a new ice age until it became profitable to flip it into global warming to justify new taxes. Back in 1971, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich who wrote in 1968 his book The Population Bomb, forecast that by the end of the millennium in 2000, “the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.” He forecast that England will n0t exist in the year 2000. He later perhaps saw where the money was and flipped his forecast to catastrophic global warming. He then forecasts we would be resorting to cannibalism.

Now the UK faces COLDEST winter for DECADE with heavy, early snowfall threatening to blanket the nation by Christmas. The interesting crisis we face is the overregulation which has raised the production cost of wheat in the United States and Australia. Australia used to be the cheapest place to grow wheat but as the environmentalists have dominated the regulations, the cheapest cost of producing wheat has shifted to Ukraine and Russia. We are totally unprepared for global cooling and we should be stockpiling grain reserves NOW!!!!

Nov 20 2018

A Technical Study in the Relationships of Solar Flux, Water, Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperatures


A pdf version of this paper is available here 

BLACKBODY TEMPERATURE

Nov 19 2018

Global Temperatures Changes October, 2018, Man Made or Not?


We have been schooled over the past 40 years that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is rising to levels never seen before on this planet and as a result the world’s average temperature is rising to levels that will, if nothing else, destroy large areas of the planet. The latest UN predictions indicate a major Catastrophe will happen by 2040 unless we do something drastic right now. This destruction will be from two factors; one, ocean levels raising and flooding all worlds coastal areas forcing the world population to higher ground; and two, even if those moves are accomplished the increased temperatures will bring massive storms that will ravage the areas not flooded. The only solution to prevent this from happening is, stop using carbon based fuels; petroleum, natural gas, and coal which, all, generate large amount of water and carbon dioxide and replacing them with wind or solar energy.

These dire projections are based on the belief that CO2 is the “primary” driver of global temperature changes; i.e. more CO2 in the atmosphere is very bad. This view is severally distorted and more likely entirely false.  One can argue the reasons for these lies but it really doesn’t matter whether they are innocent or malicious in their construct; either way promoting something that is tearing up the worlds civilizations by misallocation of resources is very misguided.

Basic facts:

  • The planets global temperature is directly related to the energy arriving here from our sun
  • That energy manifests itself in a form which we call temperature
  • Temperature is a measure of the amount of heat (energy) that an object holds
  • The planets temperature is directly related to the amount of water in the atmosphere
  • Without water in the atmosphere the earth would be 330 Celsius colder and frozen solid
  • Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a requirement for life to exist on this planet
  • More Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is better as planets grow faster, less Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is bad
  • Carbon Dioxide (CO2) only indirectly affects temperature probably less than 5% that of water
  • Climate is a measure of the average of all the factors that produce a stable environment
  • Weather is a measure of local factors that may make large changes in daily or seasonal conditions
  • The planets temperature in geological times ranged from170 Celsius +/- 60 Celsius
  • 12,000 or so years ago the last ice age ended for no reason we can determine

 

The first thing that needs to be done when developing a theory is to identify and define the issue or problem. The issue was that after WW II there was a large buildup of industry required to rebuild the devastated planet and that rapid uncontrolled growth created real environmental problems. Much good resulted from the original environmental emphasis such as the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, however, others in the 90’s saw a way to gain power and wealth by exaggerating aspects of the movement. During the 80’s and the 90’s global temperatures were going up so these people saw a way to increase the size and scope of government to their advantage with a carbon tax.  They picked increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as the strawman argument and funneled large amounts of research money into universities to study how bad the increases were.

Unfortunately, federal grant money is “directed” money so it was given to find out how bad the issue was, not to find out if it was even bad or even real. Therein was the problem as this is a very complex math and physics study in a subject that had not been previously studied in detail such that 30 years later the key variables and relationship are still not known with specify. The mistake that was made in the attempt to quantify the apparent increase in global temperatures was that increased CO2 in the planet’s atmosphere was that CO2 was the ONLY REASON the global temperatures were increasing.  Unfortunately this assumption was not true as there had been several warm and cold periods in history going back thousands of years. The previous little ice age in the seventeenth century was one of these and the warming we now have, about 10 Celsius, is partly from the northern hemisphere still coming out from that cold period.

Next we’ll review some important information on temperatures and how it’s measured. We need to understand the details before we can draw conclusions. The problem, intentional or not, goes back to physics and how we show information. It’s critical that when we talk to nonscientists that information is properly displayed. And nowhere is this more important than when we are discussing global temperature in relationship to anthropogenic climate change.

When we talk about climate (long term changes; centuries) or weather (short term changes; decades) local temperatures are going be in Celsius (C) in the EU and science, or degrees Fahrenheit (F) in America. The base temperature for the earth that NASA established is 14.00 C or 57.20 F; but these are both relative measures and do not tell us how much heat (thermal energy) is there. To know that we must use Kelvin (K) or Rankin (R) and that would be 287.150 K and 516.870 R all four of those numbers 14.00 C, 287.150 K 57.20 F, and 516.870 R are exactly the same temperature, just using a different base. But if the current temperature went from 14.00 C, to 14.860 C that is a 6.14% increase in C, an increase of 2.71% in F and an increase of .30% in K and R; so which one is real? The answer is .30% because Kelvin and Rankin are the only ones that measure the total increase in energy! Table One shows these relationships that we just discussed.

The next step is to plot Carbon Diode (CO2) from NOAA-ESRL and the estimated global temperature as published by NASS-GISS each month.  As can be seen in Table One It doesn’t really matter whether we would use Kelvin and Rankin since the increase in thermal energy is exactly the same either way; but we’ll use Kelvin as that is the accepted norm in the scientific community for determining the amount thermal energy in any object especially when looking at changes in temperature or measuring the thermal energy in any object.  There are other less known temperature scales that have specific purposes but they don’t really apply here in this subject.

The important thing is how much has the temperature actually gone up since we started to measure CO2 in the atmosphere? To show this graphically Chart 8 was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up about 30.0% from 1958 to May of 2018. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree.  Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature from 1958, using Kelvin, we find that the changes in global temperature are almost un-measurable. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 5 times (the range is 20 % on the left and 4% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .30%; while CO2 has increased by 30.0% which is 100 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give as a major problem?

Chart 8 and all the rest of what is shown here in this paper are based on the following two data series. First NASA-GISS estimates of a global temperature shown as an anomaly (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and shown in Chart 1 as the red plot labeled NASA the scale for the temperatures is on the left. The NASA LOTI temperatures are shown as a 12 month moving average because of the very large monthly variations. Second NOAA-ESRL CO2 values in Parts per Million (PPM) which are shown in Chart 1 as a black plot labeled NOAA the scale for CO2 is shown on the right no change is required to the NOAA data set it is ready to use as is.

NASA published data is shown as an anomaly, but what is a temperature anomaly?  An anomaly is a deviation from some base value normally an average that is fixed. There were two problems with the system that NASA picked which were number one there is no “actual” global temperature and two since climate is a variable and always has been so there cannot be a real base to measure from. NASA known for its science and engineering expertise back in the day thought it could get around these issues and created a system to do so. First they developed a computer model which took the readings from all over the planet and made adjustments to them in software which they called homogenization and came up with the estimated global temperature. Second they picked the period 1950 to 1980 (30 years) and averaged the values found in that period and came up with 14.00 degrees Celsius and make that their base.  Lastly they took the calculated monthly temperature and subtracted the base from it which gave them the anomaly and multiplied the result by 100.

The problem is that both are arbitrary. Why pick 1950 to 1980 as the base period? Is there something special about that time frame? And as to a global temperature there is no such thing for many reasons like the earth faces the sun so one side is cool and onside it warm. Higher latitudes are cooler than the equator and higher elevations are cooler than lower. And finally there are many areas where there are no measurements taken. Therefore there is no one temperature only an artificial artifact solely dependent on the soundness of the software used to create that one temperature!

Chart 1 below is 100% accurate and based only on NASA and NOAA data as published.

Now that we have a base to work with we are going to add to Chart 1 three things. The first is a trend line of the growth in CO2 since that is according to the government through NASA and NOAA the entire basis for climate change. That plot is superimposed over the black plot of the actual NOAA CO2 values as the cyan line labeled as the CO2 model and one can see there is a very good fit to the actual NOAA values so there should be no dispute about its validity, and it’s historically accurate.  This plot allows us to make projections to future global temperatures according to the projected level of CO2The second added item is James E. Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models (GCM’s) and which was based on a CO2 sensitivity value of 3.0O Celsius per doubling of CO2. This plot is shown here in lavender and is from a presentation that Hansen showed congress in 1988 to help support the UN in setting up the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This plot is labeled as Hansen Scenario B which Hansen stated was the most likely to happen based on his 1979 climate theories’.  The third item is the current plot of the most likely temperature of the planet based on the growth of CO2 published by the IPCC. This plot is shown in Red and is labeled as IPCC AR5 A2 as that is the table where the data was found. This plot is a GCM computer projection of the planets temperature based on the complex relationships developed by the IPCC primarily though NASA and NOAA.

It can be seen in Chart 2 that the lavender plot and the Hansen plot are very close from 1965 to around 2000. However there isn’t a good correlation between the growth in CO2 and the increase in the planets temperature, as shown in Chart 8. The CO2 is going up in a log function and the temperature was going up until 2000 then it plateaued from 2000 until 2014 where there was a mysterious spike up of .5 degrees Celsius just in time for COP21 in Paris. Then after CP21 was over the unexplained change in temperature started to come back down. The climate doesn’t make changes like what the NSA/NOAA data shows that would be weather if it even was real.

Chart 7 looks at the period from 2010 to 2020 so we can see where a change in CO2 of only a few ppm has caused a major change in the global temperature way beyond anything previously shown in any published NASA data. There are three ovals on Chart 7 one at the top of Chart 7 which is a black oval around the CO2 levels from 2010 to 2018 and it’s very obvious that there has been very little change, maybe 3 ppm a year Then at the bottom of Chart 7 is dark red oval around the NASA global temperature levels from 2013 to 2018 and its very obvious that there has been a sudden large change, almost .50 degrees Celsius in 3 years. There has never been such a large increase in temperature from such a small increase in CO2. By contrast the previous comparable period of the last part of 2010 through 2013 Blue oval shows about the same increase per year for CO2 but global temperature decreased.

An explanation is needed here as the NASA temperature plot in Chart 7 seems to show the jump in temperature in 2016 not 2015; this is a result of the very large jump in temperature shown by NASA. Since we are using a 12 month moving average and the increase occurred in only a few months it actually shifted the curve into 2016. The raw data for December 2012 was at a low of 14.44 degrees Celsius but by February 2016 the temperature was at a record high of 15.35 degrees Celsius a .91 degree Celsius increase, Red arrow. With the global temperature over 15.0 Celsius at COP21 in December 2015 at the Paris COP21 conference the climate accord was approved and the manipulation was a success. After COP21 the Fake Warming was no longer needed so we are now seeing a downward trend developing. The current temperature for June 2018 is 14.88 degrees Celsius.

In summary, the IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO2 levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a ~20 year period when the real variations in climate  move in much longer cycles of centuries which can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason.  By ignoring those actual geological trends and focusing only on CO2 the Global Climate Models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed. Also the temperature data from 1850 to 1880 was dropped for some reason as it showed a lower temperature than would be expected. The lower temperatures’ in that period would have shown a shorter cycle they didn’t want shown.

A decade ago when I started looking at “climate” change the first thing I did was look at geological temperature changes since it is well known that the climate is not a constant; I learned that 53 years ago in my undergrad geology and climatology courses in 1964. The next paragraph explains currently observed patterns in climate related to this subject and is historical accurate.

Ignoring the last Ice Age which ended some 11,000 years ago when a good portion of the Northern hemisphere was under miles of ice the following observations give a starting point to any serious study on the subject of climate. First, there is a clear movement up and down in global temperatures with a 1,000 some year cycle going back at least 3,000 to 4,000 years; probably because of the apsidal precession of the earth’s orbit of about 20,000 years for a complete cycle. About every 10,000 years the seasons are reversed making the winter colder and the summer warmer in the northern hemisphere. 10,000 years from now the seasons will be reversed again. Secondly, there are also 60 to 70 year cycles in the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans that are well documented. These are known as the Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillations (AMO) in the Atlantic and as La Nina and El Nino in the Pacific. Thirdly, we also know that there are greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that can affect global temperatures. Lastly the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that carbon dioxide had a doubling rate of 3.0O Celsius plus or minus 1.5O Celsius in 1979 when there were only two studies available and one for sure and maybe both were not peer reviewed.

The result of looking objectively at the three possible sources of global temperature changes was a series of equations based on these observations that when added together produced a sinusoidal curve that seemed to follow NASA published temperatures very closely when first developed in 2007, and modified a few years later when it was found the short and long cycles were related to multiples of Pi.  Since this curve was based on observed temperature patterns it was called a Pattern Climate Model (PCM) which has been described in previous papers and posts on my blog and since it is generated by “equations” many assume it is some form of least squares curve fitting, which it is not. It does seem to be related to ocean currents where the bulk of the planet’s surface heat is stored and cloud formation.

Chart 5 shows the PCM a composite of two cycles and CO2. There is a long trend, 1036.7 years with an up and down of 1.65O Celsius (.00396O C per year) we in the up portion of that trend. Then  there is a 69.1 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of 0.29O Celsius and we are now in the downward portion of that trend (-.01491O C per year), which will continue until around ~2035. Lastly, there is CO2 currently adding about .0079O Celsius per year so together they all basically wash out at -.0039O C per year, which matches the current holding pattern we were experiencing until 2014. After about 2035 the short cycle will have bottomed and turn up and all three will be on the upswing again duplicating what was observed in the 1980’s.  Note: the values shown here are only representative from what is in the model.

When using a 12 month running average for global temperatures up until 2014 the PCM model was within +/- .01 degrees of what NASA was publishing in their LOTI table since the early 1960’s as shown in Chart 5. Further the back projection of the PCM plot matched historical records and global temperatures going back past the time of Christ. It should also be considered that geologically CO2 levels have reached levels many times that of the current 400 ppm without destroying the planet so the current hysteria over the current very small numbers can only be explained by political science not real science.

Lastly, Chart 9 shows what a plot of the PCM model, in yellow, would look like from the year 1400 to the year 2900. This plot matches reasonably well with recorded history and fits the current NASA-GISS table LOTI data, in red, very closely, despite homogenization.  I do understand that this PCM model is not based on physics but it is also not some statistical curve fitting. It’s based on two observed reoccurring patterns in the climate and a factor for CO2. These patterns can be modeled and when they are, you get a plot that works better than any of the IPCC’s GCM’s. If the real conditions that create these patterns do not change and CO2 continues to increase to 800 ppm or even 1000 ppm then this model will work well into the foreseeable future.  150 years from now global temperatures will peak at around 15.750 to 16.000 C and then they will be on the downside of the long cycle for the next ~500 years.

The overall effect of CO2 reaching levels of 1000 ppm or even higher will be about 1.50 C which is about the same as that of the long cycle.  The Green plot on Chart 9 shows the observed pattern with no change in CO2 from the pre-industrial era of ~280 ppm. CO2 cannot affect global temperatures more than 1.500 C +/- no matter what the ppm level of CO2 is. The reason being that the CO2 sensitivity value is not 3.00 per doubling of CO2 but less than 1.00 C per doubling of CO2 as shown in more current scientific work and it’s a logistics curve not a log curve.

The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected. 

The Obama administration’s “need” for a binding UN climate treaty with mandated CO2 reductions in Europe and America was achieved as predicted at the COP12 conference in Paris in December 2015. To support this endeavor NASA was forced to show ever increasing global temperatures that will make less and less sense based on observations and satellite data which will all be dismissed or ignored.  Within a few years the manipulation will be obvious even to those without knowledge in the subject, but by then it will be to late the damage to the reputation of science will have been done. Fortunately President Trump pulled us out of the bad agreement.

In closing keep this in mind. The current panic generated by the government using political science is that the current global temperature of around 15.0O Celsius is an increase of 7.14% from the 1960’s when the global temperature was 14.0O Celsius; and that does seem like a lot. However those views would be in error as the actual increase in thermal energy, as measured by temperature, would be only .35% because we must use Kelvin not Celsius when working with heat energy. When we use kelvin the temperature goes from 287.15O K to 288.15O K which is only .35% not 7.14% about 1/20 of what is implied by the IPCC. What the IPCC shows is not technically wrong as much as it is extremely misleading to anyone without a science background.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers for science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected.

 

 

 

Nov 19 2018

The Great Global Warming Swindle – Full Documentary HD


Published on Aug 19, 2018

The Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.” According to Martin Durkin the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun. Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence it’s claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a ‘little ice age’. According to the program humans do have an effect on climate but it’s infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths, and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind. According to a group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you’ve ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we’ve begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin’s documentary slays the whole premise of global warming. “Global warming has become a story of huge political significance; environmental activists using scare tactics to further their cause; scientists adding credence to secure billions of dollars in research money; politicians after headlines and a media happy to play along. No-one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardizing careers.
Nov 19 2018

The Snowiest Decade


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Nov 19, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

This winter is starting off colder than the last two years. My biggest concern is that all the nonsense about Global Warming is preventing us from preparing for the real trend – Global Cooling. Even in the Bible, there is the story about Joseph warning the Pharaoh that there would be 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine.

During these periods of Global Cooling, this is when disease increases because people are suffering during a famine. What we should be doing is being to create a strategic grain reserve as they use to do with oil. But these people who keep up the nonsense about global Warming are putting society at risk from famine. Perhaps that is what they really want to happen by reducing the population.

Nov 18 2018

Monckton’s Mathematical Proof – Climate Sensitivity is Low


Published on Mar 28, 2017

1000Frolly channel relies on your generosity and support to keep up the fight against the forces of pseudo-science. Please assist of you can; Patreon https://www.patreon.com/1000Frolly The 12th ICCC (International Conference on Climate Change) March 23rd and 24th, 2017 in Washington D.C. Lord Monckton strikes again! Technical talk on the mathematical problems of the IPCC’s climate sensitivity. Standard YouTube licence.