Federal Reserve is Responsible for Global Warming


COMMENT: Marty,

 

I was looking at the Global Warming Chart, at the red line and saying to myself, “That look awfully familiar.” Then I got it.

 

Note how the red line drops down from 1907 to almost 1913, gets a WWI bump and then rises steadily to about 1938. Then it really goes up for World War II, reduces down in 1956 and goes steady-eddy for the rest of the 50’s and 60’s. Then right on clue it begins to rise sharply in 1971 and hasn’t looked back. Global warming isn’t being caused by CO2. It is being caused by an excessive increase in credit, or more specifically the increase in the money supply. M2. What do you know? The Quantity of Money theory really does have an effect. And if this is true, the FED is more powerful than it realizes.

 

Just thought you’d like to know.

REPLY: Brilliant. You solved the whole crisis. The Fed is the problem and they take orders from Congress. There is the entire source. Besides altering the data, one must wonder if they did not fake it by using the money supply. They do not understand that things also shift in climate. New Jersey was tropical once and 1/3rd of the state is covered in what we called the Pinelands because it was sand and not soil. That region was all under water. Does that mean the sea was higher? No, the land shifted. Siberia is now warming while it snowed in Texas and Alabama.

Climate Change has Nothing to do with the Sun?


COMMENT: You are wrong. This chart proves you are wrong and it is mankind that is creating global warming. The sun activity has been declining for 35 years and the temperature is rising. That proves you are wrong.

PL

REPLY: First of all, the chart you rely on starts in 1880. The historical record is millions of years. Over 35,000 scientists have signed a letter stating Global Warming is fake. If I charted the Dow Jones for just the post-2009 period, I could conclude that the stock market only rises and never crashes. There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that proves Global Warming is caused by mankind when there have been warming periods and ice ages long before fossil fuels. It is one thing to say that our use of fossil fuels have “accelerated” the trend and something entirely different to argue that we have caused the trend.

The ice core sample proves there is about a 300 years cycle between the maximum and minimum energy output of the sun. Looking at just 140 years of data does not prove anything. I am glad you trust the government so much that they argue this so they can tax it. Like cigarettes, if they are 100% bad, then outlaw them. Never! Why do that when they can tax them?

If you want to argue the sun has nothing to do with this issue, then provide a study that goes back beyond 1880. If I am wrong, then perhaps all those who think they are the cause of the planet turning warm should walk to work, use no heat or air conditioning, purchase no clothes and make your own from sheep without consuming energy, or just commit suicide to stop breathing since you put out CO2 which you demonize as the planet killer.

Even NASA has come out and admitted it is going to get colder – not warmer. NASA has reported that Antarctic sea ice (different from Artic ice) reached a new record maximum. Don’t worry, we are going into a cooling period and that is when empires fall. So be patient, you will reduce CO2, you just may contribute your part to help that along.

Global Warming Causing California Wildfires?


Believe it or not, now the Global Warming crowd is trying to claim that the California wildfires are being caused by none other than Global Warming. “As global temperatures continue to rise, scientists say the risk of extreme fire seasons across the West is rising, too.” Anyone who has ever visited the Red Wood Forest in California stands in awe of the grandeur of the place. However, to the shock of many, the redwoods are nearly indestructible. They have evolved to withstand fires. That means, over millions of years, wildfires in California have existed long before humans were even there. The Global Warming people just never bother looking at the facts.

 

Siberian Volcano Suddenly Erupts


While all eyes have been on the volcano in Bali,  the Siberian Shiveluch Volcano erupted yesterday for over a 20 minutes spewing ash 6 miles (10 kilometers) high into the sky. The 1963 eruption in Bali was one of the largest and most devastating eruptions in Indonesia’s history. Nevertheless, it was still only a VEI5. Ideally, an eruption in Bali was due from a cyclical perspective in 2018.

In the case of the Siberian Shiveluch Volcano, there have been significant eruptions taking place in 1854 and 1956. The most recent eruption began again on August 15, 1999, and have continued periodically when on February 27th, 2015, Shiveluch erupted spewing ash into the atmosphere about 30,000 feet crossing the Bering Sea and into Alaska. From a cyclical perspective, this particular volcano was due to start again in 2017.

If we continue to get several volcanoes erupting into 2018, then this should be an active period and it will contribute to Global Cooling. Our models of food prices appear to be rising after 2018 moving into 2024. This would tend to indicate that we may indeed be looking at a rising in the volcanic activity in many places.

Climate Change – Volcanoes (Part II)


Eruption of volcano Agung in Bali

Over the past few decades, there have been several research papers in the scientific press that submit there is a correlation between cosmic-solar radiations and destructive geological events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. On top of this, there are correlations with climate change that kick in where volcanoes throw up ash into the atmosphere which blocks the sun and that sets in motion the global cooling sending the earth back toward an Ice Age. Therefore, the entire process is extremely complex. Our computer can put out a forecast, but it is looking at everything and the dynamic complexity of all the interactions. This is why I do not put forth X happens because of Y. It is just more complex than such correlations.

Nonetheless, the strongest correlation between volcanoes and earthquakes remains that with the sun. In the last two and half centuries the following major volcanic eruptions occurred during strong solar minimum when the energy is at its greatest: Grimvotn (Iceland) 1783/84 (14 km3), Tambora (Indonesia) 1810 (150 km3), Krakatoa 1883 (5.0 km3), Santa Maria (Guatemala) 1902 (4.8 km3), Novarupta (Alaska) 1912 (3.4 km3). The only major eruption to occur during a solar maximum was Pinatabo (Philippines) 1991 (between 6 and 16 km3).

Additionally, research has concluded that there is an extremely high correlation between global volcanic activity among the largest of classes of eruptions and solar activity lows. Over 80% of these volcanic eruptions greater than VEI 5 and almost 88% of the extreme largest eruptions measuring VEI 6 or greater also taking place with solar minimums. There appears to be a strong correlation of volcanic eruptions coinciding with solar minimum. Pictured above, the Bali, Indonesian Agung volcano has been putting out smoke for several weeks. If this eruption unfolds as a VEI 6+ or VEI 7 as was Tambora back in 1815, this will accelerate the Global Cooling. That is going to be devastating for society and the global economy.

There is a clear relationship between solar magnetic activity and 11 of the most explosive eruptions from silicate-rich volcanoes in Japan over the past 309.6 years. It turns out that nine of these eruptions, in fact, took place during solar minimum, which is the inactive phase of solar activity/sunspots. We may find that volcanoes are also triggered by the by the rise in cosmic radiation.

What I can confirm is that volcanic eruptions play a tremendous part in creating Global Cooling, which is our real threat going into the next decade. Volcanic activity is rising again from Mount Tambora to Yellowstone. Evidence suggests that 1816, known as the year without a summer, was caused predominantly by a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, which was the largest eruption in at least 1,300 years. However, the Year Without a Summer was exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines. Once again, it appears that there is a correlation of not just one volcanic eruption, but a series. Wheat prices had peaked in 1812 due to war, but they declined in 1815 falling to $19.90. They then rallied sharply into 1817 reaching about $30 posting a 50% advance.

1817-Wheat-Y

In Britain, the farmers tried to prevent the price of wheat from declining. They essentially paid off the politicians to introduce the Corn Laws which were tariffs and restrictions on imported food and grain (“corn”). The Corn Laws were enforced in Great Britain between 1815 and 1846. They were designed to keep grain prices high to favor domestic producers against the American farmers in the aftermath of the War of 1812. The Corn Laws imposed steep import duties and thereby made it too expensive to import grain from America, which set in motion famine conditions when food supplies were short. This attempt by the British government to protect their farmers from competition became a leading cause of the Great Irish Potatoe Famine.

Beginning from 1845 to 1851, the Irish potato famine killed over a million men, women, and children. This is what caused over a million more to flee the country sailing to America where food was plenty. Ireland in the mid-1800s was an agricultural nation, populated by eight million people who were among the poorest people in the Western World. The cause of famine was potato blight, which devastated the crops throughout Europe during the 1840s. However, the impact in Ireland was overwhelming since about one-third of the population was dependent on the potato. The Corn Laws contributed to the disaster by blocking the importation of food. They were abandoned because of the Irish situation in 1846.

 

 

If we look back in time through the historical record, we discover another period where there appears to be a major convergence of volcanic activity which creates Global Cooling and the subsequent famine. There were the great volcanic eruptions that created the extreme weather events of 535–536AD during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (527-565AD). A mysterious cloud appeared over the Mediterranean basin according to the historian Procopius of Caesarea (Procopius Caesarensis; c. 500-560 AD) who wrote: “The sun gave forth its light without brightness, and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear.” This was a volcanic cloud that blocked the sun. But it was not a volcano in that region. The cloud’s appearance created a climate cooling for more than a decade. Crops failed, and there was widespread famine. This also sets in motion a pandemic known as the Plague of Justinian (541-542), which swept through the Eastern Roman Empire killing 5,000 people per day in Constantinople. The dating of this is extremely close to the famous civil unrest known as the Nika Revolt of 532 AD, which preceded the cloud account of Procopius and the plague.

Scientists had postulated that the Global Cooling set in motion by a giant volcanic winter 535-536AD may have been the result of the eruption of Ilopango in El Salvador, which filled Earth’s atmosphere with ash as did Mount Tambora in 1815. However, as the SMITHSONIAN reported back in 2010, “researchers say there were two eruptions—one in 535 or 536 in the northern hemisphere and another in 539 or 540 in the tropics—that kept temperatures in the north cool until 550.” This has emerged from studying the ice core samples collected in Antarctica and Greenland with data from tree rings. According to the correlation of this data, “nearly all extreme summer cooling events in the northern hemisphere in the past 2,500 years can be traced to volcanoes,” reported the Smithsonian.

There has been a lot recently written about the danger of a Supervolcano at Yellowstone. In fact, scientists discovered a tremendous blob of magma stored beneath Yellowstone, a blob that if released could fill the Grand Canyon 11 times over, the researchers reported on April 23, 2013, in the journal Science. The latest of the trio of Supervolcano eruptions created the park’s huge crater, measuring 30 by 45 miles across (48 by 72 kilometers). Correlating this with our database suggests that there is a more likely alignment with the flipping of the poles every 720,000 years, which we went into in great detail in the Mayan Report – Supernatural Side Roads.

If we assume the 8.6-year cycle applies to this type of event given even the precession of the Equinox is a derivative 25,800 years (3×8.6), then we should see key markers along the way about every 224 years. If we look backward in time, we look to 1705BC, which was followed by the eruption of Thera (Santorini) which destroyed the Minoan Empire. Two cycles back from 535 brings us to 87AD, which was a period that also marked the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD is probably the best known volcanic eruption in world history since it buried Pompeii and Herculaneum.

Looking at 224 intervals moving forward in time. there is evidence of unusually high levels of Carbon 14 discovered in tree rings throughout Japan from this period around 759AD, the next target after 535-536AD. The high Carbon 14 trace from this period has suggested that there was at least a gamma-ray burst from the sun. The next target would be about 983AD bringing us to the great Medieval Warm Period (MWP) when the climate turned back up into a warm climate for the North Atlantic region. This lasted into about 1200AD. The next target would be 1207 is perhaps the beginning of the Little Ice Age.

Thereafter, the next target period begins 1431, followed by 1655, 1879, which was followed by the Krakatoa eruption in 1883 (VEI 6). We also have a VEI 3 event at Cotopaxi, Ecuador in 1877. Cotopaxi has begun to erupt in 2015 while the island that once hosted Krakatoa was completely destroyed in the eruption in 1883, new eruptions began in December 1927 which rebuilt the Anak Krakatau (“Child of Krakatau”) cone in the center of the caldera. Anak Krakatau sporadically comes to life, building a new island in the shadow of its parent. The next major target would be 2103 for a massive correlation.

Tambora has also come alive since 2011. Radar Images provided by the International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center in Florida, show the hot areas. This volcano is also on the watch list for an eruption once again. There has been a sequence of earthquakes that began shaking the island with increasing frequency since April 2011. Columns of ash have already been venting as high as 4,600 feet.

If we see a series of volcanic eruptions in the VEI 6 category or greater within 2018, expect to see a very sharp turn down in temperature and Global Cooling will take on rapid change going into 2024.

Climate Change – Earthquakes Caused by Complex Cycles (Part I)


Several people have asked why I could not confirm or deny that the cause of earthquakes is the slowing down of the Earth’s rotation. As previously reported, this new theory was published in Geophysical Research Letters earlier this year by Roger Bilham of the University of Colorado and Rebecca Bendick of the University of Montana. The theory notes that Earth actually slowed down in its rotation, which will increase the intensity of earthquakes every 32 years. Their research is based on looking at earthquakes since 1900 that were greater than 7.0, and noticing a cycle that is approximately every 32 years for an uptick in these large quakes. They argue that the only factor that strongly correlates is a slight slowing of the Earth’s rotation in a five-year period before the uptick.

I cannot confirm or deny that the cause of the 32-year cycle is the slowing of the Earth’s rotation because there are other correlations that need to be addressed. I did confirm that my own research agreed that there is a 31.4-year cycle of intensity in earthquakes. Additionally, I do not believe we can attribute the cause of earthquake intensity to the slowing of the Earth’s rotation because you cannot reduce the cause to a single factor.

As far back as 1967, a study was published with the Earth and Planetary Science Letters which found solar activity plays a significant role in triggering earthquakes. Solar activity, as indicated by sunspots, radio noise, and geomagnetic indices play a significant, but by no means exclusive, role in the triggering of earthquakes. (Source: Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volume 3, 1967–1968, Pages 417-425)

Later, in 1998 a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Science, found a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes. Then in 2007, Yin ZhiQiang, Ma LiHua, and Han YanBen conducted a study which produced results showing that the lengths and amplitudes of the periods have changed with time, and large variations have taken place during some periods. (Source: Chinese Science Bulletin).

Another recent research study carried by The Space and Science Research Center in Florida, US, showed a strong correlation between solar activity and the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions within the continental United States and other regions around the world. The study looked at the data of volcanic activity between (1650 – 2009) and seismic (earthquakes) activity between (1700 – 2009) and then the recorded data was compared with the sunspots record (solar activity).

The results of this study exposed a very strong correlation between solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events, within the continental US as well as globally. The correlation for volcanic activity was greater than 80% (discuss in a separate post) and for the largest earthquakes was came out with a 100% correlation with the top 7 most powerful quakes versus solar activity lows.

NASA also published a study showing that there can be lesser quakes in the 5.1 range that are shallow ground movements reflecting the strain accumulated on deeper faults, which remain locked and may be capable of producing future earthquakes in the 7.0+ magnitude range in Los Angeles. When we ran our weather models on a correlation with California earthquakes, it revealed a cycle of drought followed by flooding, which then undermines the structure and precedes earthquakes. NASA published a study showing that indeed the drought in California was causing the land to actually sink. They reported that groundwater levels have fallen 100 feet already.

 

In 2008 researchers, NASA announced that their scientists stand on the verge of a major breakthrough in their efforts to forecast earthquakes. They reported that they have found a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below. They observed this correlation days before the recent 8.0 devastating earthquake in China which struct on May 12th, 2008 (2008.361) known as the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. While there were a lot of quakes 309.6 years prior in 1698, there were not 8.0 quakes. There was an 8.0 quake known as the 1679 Sanhe-Pinggu earthquake, which was about 56Km from Beijing. If we look at the 224-year frequency, we again come close to the 1786 Kangding-Luding earthquake, which was a 7.7 quake. The 51.6-year frequency also produced two quakes in 1955 that were 7.1 1955 Kangding earthquake and a 6.8 quake known as the 1955 Yuzha earthquake.

Therefore, we may also have a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below has been found. This finding is in agreement with similar studies carried out by other space research institutes. Satellites have picked up disturbances 100 – 600 km above areas that have later been hit by earthquakes. Apparently, fluctuations in the density of electrons and other electrically-charged particles in the ionosphere have been observed, which may also provide a market for earthquakes.

In Taiwan, similar research has agreed with this theory. The researcher Jann-Yeng Liu also reported the link between earthquake and disturbances in the ionosphere. His work examined over 100 earthquakes with magnitude 5.0 and larger in and around Taiwan over several decades. His analysis showed that nearly every earthquake down to a depth of about 35 Km was preceded by distinct electrical disturbances in the ionosphere. So again, is this the cause or a mere correlation?

The theory put forth by Minoru Freund of the NASA Ames Research Center argued that when rocks are compressed-as when tectonic plates, they act like batteries, producing electric currents. This line of reasoning would imply that the electric disturbances are the result and not the cause since compressing rocks releases electrical charges that then travel upwards into the ionosphere. However, perhaps fluctuations in the cosmic-solar radiations are charging the ionosphere first, which then transfer to the planet disrupting the geomagnetic field generating the current.

The global warming people have totally ignored the sun and its interactions with our planet and the climate. It is a known fact that during solar minimum, which we are now headed in to, is when we get the peak energy in cosmic radiation. During these maximum energy periods, the cosmic radiation can penetrate the greatest depths within the planet. The correlation with the sun also exists whereby the greatest earthquakes swarm during the period of solar minimum.

Nevertheless, the relationship between the lowest-highest solar cycles and earthquakes produces the highest level of correlation. Therefore, the data simply establish an extremely strong correlation between major earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude or more (on Richter scale) and strong solar minimum (grand minimums).

We are in what is being called Solar Cycle 24. This is the 24th solar cycle since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. It is the current solar cycle which began in December 2008 with a smoothed minimum of 2.2 (SIDC formula). There was only minimal activity until early 2010. It reached its maximum in April 2014 with smoothed sunspot number only 116.4, the lowest in over a century. The 8.0 2008 Sichuan earthquake took place right on schedule.

A simple correlation with the energy output of the sun reveals that all major earthquakes occurred during strong solar minimums. Consequently, there were 7 major earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude moving into the turning point in 2008-2010. Kiril Islands (Russia) twice- 8.1 (November 2006 & January 2007), Peru-8.0 (August 2007), Sumatra-8.5 (September 2007), Sichuan earthquake-8.0 (May 2008)Samoa-8.1 (September 2009), Maule (Chile)-8.8 (February 2010).

The Global Warming people have clearly harmed our investigation into serious correlations with the sun and our planet, which also impact our world economy. The cycles emerging from the various earth data correspo9nd to our Economic Confidence Model and the six waves at the 309.6-year level.

At the grand level of the 1857.6-year time interval we experience major changes and shifts in civilization. This correlates with the global cooling and the solar cycles. It is high time to understand that our planet is permanently linked to the solar energy. The longer the global warming crowd tries to blame humans for everything, the longer we will ignore something that may be far more devastating than global warming — the decline in solar activity which turns weather down and corresponds to a rise in earthquake and volcanic activity (see Part II on Volcanos).

Core of climate science is in the real-world data


News Weekly Mobile

ENVIRONMENT

The Government continues to flounder with directionless and inconsistent energy policies, inviting much public commentary, but the science these days scarcely gets a mention.

As we have seen in social policy, the strategy of the left is first to shut down debate and delegitimise any dissent from the position adopted by the left-leaning elements of the media, academia, bureaucracy, the environmental movement and renewable-energy interests.

Lacking the capacity to distinguish science from pseudo-science, the Coalition under Howard effectively acquiesced to the totalitarian-left idea that the science on global warming was settled. It dared not question the assertion that carbon dioxide was causing dangerous global warming for fear that it would be loudly denounced and ridiculed as being in denial about the harmful effects that our emissions of carbon dioxide were supposed to be having on the climate.

In doing so, the Coalition allowed the totalitarian left to define the terms of the debate. But, let us do the impermissible and look at the science behind the question of whether carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming.

The scientific method for investigating a new idea is to pose two falsifiable hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis tests the most obvious explanation; and the alternative hypothesis tests the new theory that the scientist is bringing to bear on the issue.

In the context of global warming, the null hypothesis is that the warming observed since the onset of industrialisation is due to natural causes; the alternative hypothesis is that this warming is due to anthropogenic carbon-dioxide emissions. Both hypotheses must be tested and the objective is to see which of these two hypotheses is incompatible with the data. That is, we are attempting to falsify one or the other or both of the hypotheses (since it is conceivable that there is another human-related cause of the global warming which has not yet been thought of).

A hypothesis can never be proved by this method but it remains viable only as long as it remains consistent with the data. You must not cherry-pick your data; the hypothesis must be consistent with all of the available data. It takes only one instance of the hypothesis being found to be inconsistent with the data for it to be falsified; and this is why the science is never “settled”.

One must begin by assembling all of the available data. The data we are concerned with in this issue are the temperature and atmospheric carbon-dioxide data. The temperature data consists of the meteorological record that has been collected using various instrumental techniques since the 1850s, and also data from various “proxy” sources that enable the temperature record to be inferred. This may be done from such techniques as the measurement of isotope ratios in gas samples extracted from ice cores and seabed cores.

Using these proxy sources of temperature data, scientists have been able to reconstruct the temperature history of the planet going back thousands to hundreds of thousands of years and beyond. Samples collected from ice and seabed cores can also be used to determine the concentrations of carbon dioxide present in the air over those periods.

Figure 1. After Professor Bob Carter (lecture at the 10th International Conference
on Climate Change at the Heartland Institute on June 12, 2015). Air Temperatures
above the Greenland ice cap for the past 10,000 years reconstructed from
ice cores using data from Alley, 2000 (The Younger Dryas cold interval
as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 213-226)
(top panel), with a time scale showing years before modern time.
Lower panel shows the carbon-dioxide concentrations of the atmosphere
over the same period from EPICA Dome C ice core.

Figure 1 shows one example of data derived from such proxy sources. The top panel of the figure shows a declining temperature trend over the 8,000-year period from the Holocene Climate Optimum to the modern warm period (left-hand scale). It also shows that this location experienced numerous cycles of warming and cooling that involved temperature changes of the order of two degrees Celsius.

The superimposition of the temperature data from the modern period instrumental record (dotted line and right-hand scale) provide a very appro-ximate context to the late 20th-century warming.

The lower panel shows that the carbon-dioxide concentration over the same period has been consistently increasing. Neither the cooling trend nor the cyclic behaviour of temperature is reflected in the carbon-dioxide record in the lower panel. Therefore carbon dioxide cannot be causing the observed temperature changes. No causation can exist if there is no correlation.

These data clearly show that whatever effect carbon dioxide may have on the temperature, it is far outweighed by other factors: and this falsifies the hypothesis that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming. The data show that there is nothing unusual about the current episode of increased global temperature in either its timing or its amplitude, which lies well within the bounds of natural variation.

From these data we cannot ascribe any cause to the current warming event, nor is it necessary to do so. We simply observe that the data are seen to be consistent with the null hypothesis that the modern warming is due to natural causes, and inconsistent with the alternative hypothesis that this warming is due to carbon dioxide. We do not need to understand the details of the operation of the climate system, which so occupies the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It is important to recognise that no single data set is ideal. All available data sets have their limitations, including those of Figure 1. It is equally important to recognise that all of the available data must be considered. It is not valid to simply disregard data that don’t suit you when there is no satisfactory data set available to provide all the information required on its own.

The data most commonly relied upon in making the case that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming are the data from the instrumental meteorological record. Over the 167-year period of the meteorological record, it is not possible to observe the extent of natural variation in temperature that can be seen in the proxy record of figure 1. Therefore the meteorological record is incapable of being used to test the null hypothesis. This makes the meteorological record the least useful of the data sets that are available for answering the question of whether the warming observed over the last 100 years is due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Conclusions based on these data alone are therefore worthless.

The main limitation of the data of Figure 1 is that they are derived from ice cores at a single location and cannot therefore be considered to represent the “global average” temperature that the meteorological record attempts to approximate. This does not mean that these data can be disregarded. There is evidence from a vast range of sources that the warming cycles of Figure 1, among them the Mediaeval Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period and the Holocene Climate Optimum, did not occur only at the sites from which the cores were taken but were in fact widespread and probably global. (For a comprehensive discussion of the evidence, see Heaven and Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science, by Professor Ian Plimer. Available from Freedom Publishing.)

It is probable, however, that the amplitude of the temperature excursions from the baseline in Figure 1 are somewhat larger than would be seen in a global average graph, if such a graph were available, since temperature variations in equatorial regions are usually smaller than temperature variations at higher latitudes. Nevertheless, the data cannot be ignored, because such data provide the best indication we have of the natural variability of temperature and provide the context within which modern-day warming must be considered. In this context, the current warming event appears to be just the latest in a long series of warming and cooling cycles.

The alternative hypothesis is seen to be completely inconsistent with the data and must be rejected since the 8,000-year declining temperature trend occurs in conjunction with a steadily increasing carbon-dioxide trend.

The current meteorological record shows that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 19 years. This suggests that we may be at the peak of the current warming cycle and that the next temperature change is more likely than not to be the cooling phase of this cycle. This is consistent with the expectation by some astrophysicists that in the next 20 to 30 years we will encounter conditions similar to those of the Little Ice Age that were experienced during the last cooling cycle.

Under those conditions, the global-warming alarmists may come to regret their love affair with wind turbines that stop turning and solar panels which, in colder areas such as those located around Canberra, may become covered with snow if the southern hemisphere experiences a similar cooling to the northern hemisphere. The alarmists may then want to burn all the coal that they can get their hands on. That may become difficult if the Greens are successful in their push to have all coalmines and coal-fired power stations closed down. Do they seriously imagine that these natural climatic cycles have somehow stopped?

Changes in the climate can be expected and it is prudent to prepare for them. But whether it is warming or cooling, our ability to cope with the changes will depend on the availability of cheap and reliable power. It is deadly foolish to base our response to inevitable climate changes upon a theoretical understanding of the way that the climate system operates that is known to be inconsistent with the data and that would result in a complete inability to deal with the cooling that will inevitably come at some time in the future.

The cooling that was experienced in Europe during the Little Ice Age resulted in shorter northern-hemisphere growing seasons, crop failures, starvation, depopulation and the plague, and was far more deadly than any possible warming we might face. (Again, see Plimer, Heaven and Earth.)

Although there is endless reporting and commentary about the danger of global warming, there is no mention of the data supporting the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis because no such data exist. Discussion always diverts to such matters as modelling, sea-level changes, weather events, reef bleaching, melting ice caps or any of a myriad other phenomena in which changes have been observed.

If you study nature you will always observe change, but these changes must be seen in their proper context. All of these changing phenomena may (or may not) be signs of warming. But signs of warming are precisely what one would expect to see at the peak of a warming cycle and they tell us absolutely nothing about the cause of the warming. To test the hypothesis that it is carbon dioxide that is causing the warming we must turn to carbon dioxide and temperature data: and they show that whatever the cause of the warming is, it is not carbon dioxide, whose warming effect, such as it is, is clearly outweighed by natural factors.

Any attempt to imply that rises in sea level, for example, are a sign that carbon-dioxide emissions are the cause of global warming is bogus science (there are other reasons why sea levels might rise). It is effectively saying that the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is causing global warming is being supported by another hypothesis: that sea-level rises are due to global warming, which is due to carbon dioxide. Or that the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef is due to the warming of the oceans, which is due to global warming, which is due to carbon dioxide.

You cannot support a hypothesis with another hypothesis or even a series of hypotheses. That is bogus science. The test of the global-warming hypothesis can only be made against the carbon-dioxide and temperature data.

In a similar vein, any attempt to assure us that we must cut emissions because if we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere we will reach a “tipping point” that our theory (and our models) show will bring us catastrophe, is also bogus science. Such a line of reasoning is effectively saying: “Don’t take any notice of the data that falsify our global-warming hypothesis. No, we have a theory about how the climate system operates and our understanding of this system is much better at telling how carbon dioxide affects the climate than the data. We know about triggers and tipping points and whatnot, and if we keep adding to the carbon dioxide it will bring catastrophe – just you wait and see.”

That is not science; you cannot support a hypothesis with a theory. The theory is, after all, based on the premise that the hypothesis is true: but the data show that it is false. When vascular plants evolved on earth some 400 million years ago, the carbon-dioxide concentration was more than 10 times the current level, and that did not cause tipping points or runaway global warming; yet we are asked to believe that a mere doubling of carbon dioxide from the very low levels we see at present will bring catastrophe.

Those who claim that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming need to produce data that force the rejection of the null hypothesis: that the warming is due to natural causes. This has not been done and, in the absence of those data, the global-warming hypothesis must be regarded as nothing but a theory based on a premise that is known to be false.

For all the costs that “clean” energy policies and high energy prices impose on household, business and national budgets, there can be no possible bene-fit, since the proposition that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming is falsified by the data.

One must ask: how can the government have got it so wrong, since the government has access to the best scientific advice available?

The answer to that has two parts. The first, as alluded to earlier, is that the left long ago completed its march through the institutions – including the scientific institutions – so the overwhelming majority of advice to the government conforms to the so-called “consensus” view. The second is that there are too few people entering the ranks of Parliament who understand science and who recognise when they are being fed pseudo-science by those providing the advice.

As the late Professor Bob Carter pointed out, it was not until the election to Parliament of Dr Dennis Jensen as a Liberal Member for the House of Representatives in 2004 that the Liberal Party had anyone with the scientific qualifications and training to discern the pseudo-science from the science and develop an informed approach to the global-warming issue. Dr Jensen displayed a healthy scepticism about the global-warming alarmism in his maiden speech to Parliament.

Unfortunately, Mr Howard did not put him in charge of global-warming policy. Instead, the Liberal Party continued to struggle with the issue while the myths and falsehoods associated with global warming took hold and green ideology took the moral high ground in professing to be intent on saving the planet from “carbon pollution” and the dangerous global warming it was alleged to cause.

Malcolm Turnbull entered Parliament in the same year as Dr Jensen and, in the biggest mistake of his career, Mr Howard in 2007 placed the left-leaning Turnbull in charge of Environment and Water Resources, presumably to give his environment policies some “green credentials”. The opportunity to tackle the global-warming falsehoods and develop a rational energy policy was thereby lost.

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States and his rejection of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, however, provide the Australian Government with an opportunity to admit its mistake and change direction on global warming and energy policy and thereby give itself a chance of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat at the next election. It needs to find a leader who can tackle this issue head on in the face of the furious opposition that it will encounter from the ABC and the rest of the media, academia, the bureaucracies, and vested interests in the scientific and renewable energy industries.

It will be a tough fight, but it is a fight that can only be fought from within government and not from opposition. It is only when you control the appointments and the purse strings that it is possible to challenge those presenting pseudo-science as evidence and dismiss those who will not properly deal with the scientific objections to the global-warming “consensus” position.

I believe it is the only way this nation can be saved from the high energy costs that are crippling our industries and punishing household budgets. Providing strong support to President Trump on this issue might even begin to turn around this insanity globally and allow the availability of cheap and reliable power to lift underdeveloped nations out of the poverty that currently denies them access to electricity, clean water and sanitation.

Dr Ian Flanigan (retired) obtained a PhD in chemistry at the Research School of Chemistry (ANU).

Analysis of Global Temperature Trends, October, 2017, what’s really going on with the Climate?


No change in trend from last month.

The analysis and plots shown here 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 large monthly variation. Second NOAA-ESRL Carbon Dioxide (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.

NASA published data as stated in the first paragraph 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 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 readings from all over the planet and made required adjustments to them 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.  Then they took the calculated monthly temperature and subtracted the base from it which gave them the anomaly. The problem is that both are arbitrary.

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.  This plot allows us to make projections to future global temperatures according to the projected level of CO2 .  The second added item is James E. Hansen’s 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 part of a presentation that Hansen showed to congress in 1988 when the UN was about to set up the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and 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 on the levels of CO2 by the IPCC primarily though NASS 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 after that, from 2000 to 2014, there is a very large and deviation reaching close to .5 degrees Celsius in 2015, which is not an insubstantial number.  Also of note is that there doesn’t seem to be a good correlation between the growth in CO2 and the increase in the planets temperature. The CO2 is going up in a log function and the Temperature was going down until 2015 and then there was a mysterious spike up. That unexplained change in temperature direction appeared to have occurred between 2013 and 2014 and is the subject of this monthly paper.

Next we have Chart 3 which is developed from the raw data from NASS and NOAA as shown in Chart 1.  This plot was made first by adding ten years blocks of temperature and CO2 as indicated in the Chart 1 and diving by 120 to give an average for each.  Then the average Temperature was divided by the average CO2 to give degrees of temperature increase per PPM of CO2. After that was plotted it appeared that there were two different curves. The first was from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2014 shown as Black Dots and the second was from block 1995-2004 through block 2005-2017 shown as Black Dashes. When trend lines were added they were both almost perfect fits to the raw data and so you cannot see the data points very well on Chart 2.  These blocks were picked to represent the entire period of time where we had both NASA temperature data and NOAA CO2 levels.

On Chart 3 there are two sets of color coded information. The first is Cyan plot and the Cyan box with the equation in it along with the R2 value of 1.0 are for the first series from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2014. The other is the Red plot and the Red box with the equation in it along with the R2 value of 1.0 which are for the first series from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2017. We can speculate on how this change happened but it can’t be said that the plot change is not real; however additional data will be required to actually prove that something has changed.

In summary the Cyan data set indicates a diminishing effect of CO2 on global temperature for about 54 years and the Red data set represents an increasing effect of CO2 on global temperature for the past 3 years. Since both data sets have an R2 value of 1.00 the trend lines cannot be in question.

Continuing the analysis of what happened to the NASA data in table LOTI from Chart 3, the following Chart 4 was constructed from the same NASA data. It’s very sad to say but it seems to prove without much doubt that the global temperatures have been manipulated by NASA probably at the request of the federal government such that a case could be made for supporting the COP21 Paris climate conference in December 2015 by showing that the earth was much hotter than it actually was. The dates on the x axis are the date of the NASA LOTI download file. The plots for specific date groupings are set such that one can see what that date range did in each separate NASA download. The proof is shown in Chart 4 below and a discussion will follow below Chart 4 on how Chart 4 was constructed.

At the bottom of Chart 4 is a blue trend line of NASA LOTI temperatures prior to 1950 and starting in2012 the values started going down, getting colder. At the same time the NASA LOTI temperatures from 2012 to the present went up as shown in the red line.  There was no change in the base period, black line. This cannot happen with random variables they will cancel each other out; this could only be caused by specific program changes in the process that NASA and NOAA use, in other words it is intentional. So there can be no other reason but an attempt to support the adoption of the Climate accord agreement by the administration, and they were successful as it was agreed to in Paris at COP21.

How this table was constructed is important so a discussion is needed. As stated in the opening paragraph of this paper NASA publishes a table of the estimated global temperature each month as anomalies from a base of 14 degrees Celsius. This table starts with January 1880 and runs to the current date. The new table typical comes out mid-month with the values for the previous month and for August 2017 there were 1,652 values. The process that is used to create this Table is very complex and is called homogenization. What that means is that the entire table is recreated each month and what that also means is that the temperature value for any given month is a variable.

When I realized the extent of that in 2012 I started to save the printouts of the NASA LOTI tables and I went back and found a few of them from when I started this project in 2007. When I started this project what I did is type in all the values from the NASA table into a spreadsheet each month which was a daunting task and I was very happy when NASA started to publish a csv file along with the text of the LOTI data. Then all I had to do is create a routine in excel that would turn the table format into a column format.  There are now 62 months in the spreadsheet, when I started this method in 2012 there were maybe only a dozen. The values are residing in the spreadsheet as columns going from left to right so that the individual months are lined up side by side. This makes comparison of months very easy. One note is required here, when I started this model in 07 and for several years thereafter all I was doing is adding the current NASA LOTI current months number to the existing file, a single column, and it never occurred to me that the prior numbers were changing. The past was fixed, so I thought. This was also the way I was entering the NOAA CO2 data which doesn’t change over time.

The original goal was to see if the changes were just random or rounding errors. If that was so then they would wash out over time especially if I grouped the monthly data into blocks. I’ve used both 10 year (120 values) and 20 year (240 values) blocks which would be enough to maintain a fixed number if it was random or rounding. What I found was something quite different after I had a dozen or so columns in the spreadsheet, it appeared that NASA was making the past colder and the present warmer. And the purpose of the previous two Charts 3 and 4 is to show the result. Chart 4 is a bit complex but I have not found a better way to show what happened.

From 1880 to 1960 I used four 20 year blocks.  Then I needed the base so there is a 30 year block from 1950 to 1980 and lastly four 10 year blocks from 1980 to the present. The last block is not yet complete as it will run to December 2019. Because the 30 year base block is fixed at 14.0 degrees Celsius there wasn’t much point in charting those individual yearly values even though there was some minor movement in those numbers. That raises an interesting issue for how can the base numbers not change and all the other numbers from 1880 to 2017 can change each month? A note, for each data set of years the plot on Chart 4 should be a straight line from left to right; very minor fluctuation would be OK. For example the plot for 1930 to 1949 (hidden behind the black plot) is what would be normally expected. This is the only plot that doesn’t show major manipulation.

In the four data sets in the 1880 to 1940 blocks in Chart 4 all have moved down probably about a .25 degree Celsius which is not insgnificant. So the bottom line is that NASA made all the values from 1880 to 1940 colder by an average of a quarter of a degree Celsius. So that alone accounts for a high percentage of the supposed global warming that NASA shows. From 1980 to 2009 the data change appears to add another .1 degrees Celsius making the apparent differential between data from early 00’s to the present about .35 degrees greater than it was before 2009. That is not random that is a major change and clearly shows manipulation. I would probably never had caught this is if I hadn’t put the values in column format. Looking at all the data from 2008 to 2014 we find that around 2008 NASA showed that the planet had warmed about .75 degrees, Blue double arrow, from the 19th century. Then in 2014, four years later NASA showed that the planet had warmed about .95 degrees Red double arrow from the 19th century. However it gets a worse after that.

The change started in 2012, Green Oval, and Global temperature jumped almost a quarter of a degree by December 2015 just as the COP21 conference was in session. The temperatures kept going up with an eventual increase in global temperature of about 1.2 degrees Celsius in late 2016. At that point with the pressure off NASA appears to be erasing what they did as the global temperatures have now started back down.  I’m not sure how many know of this blatant manipulation but it is serious. This is not science.

Now we need to consider other factors than CO2 on Climate change.  The fault that occurred in the work that was done in the 1980’s was in assuming that there was an optimum or constant global temperature and therefore any change that was being observed was from the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  There may have been correlation but it was never proved that there was causation (high R2 value) between CO2 and global temperatures; Chart 3 clearly shows there is not. With that assumption, which limited options, we moved from true science into the realm of political science.  True science has an open mind and finds relationships that work in matching observations with predictions.  Political science changes history and/or facts to match the desires of the politicians. Since the politicians control the money political science is what we get; which means that what we get may not be technically correct.

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 52 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 up and down movement 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. However 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.

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.

The nest step in this analysis is to put all of the known data and projections into Chart 6 which contains: NASA’s temperatures plot, NOAA’s CO2 plot, the CO2 model plot, the PCM model plot, Hansen’s Scenario B plot, and lastly the IPCC AR5 A2 global temperature plot. With that done we can look at the results and try to make some sense of what is going on with the various arms of the federal government that are promoting that we tax carbon based fuels to eliminate them since they are responsible for the global temperature level  going up.  As previously stated when the government pours money into the sciences the sciences respond with technical papers the support the governments views, this is what I call political science verses real science as was done prior to the 1980’s; money talks and BS walks as everyone on the street knows.

Chart 6 shows a good overview and contains no data manipulation and the only change that was made was to convert the NASA anomalies back to degrees Celsius to make it more readable to lay people.  This is only a change in units and has no bearing on the look.  We also need to understand the NASA homogenization process and its relationship to the 30 year base period. The portion in the black circle contains the NASA base period of 14.00 degrees Celsius and the reason it’s brought up here is that the Homogenization process causes the global temperatures to move around since the entire data base all the way back to 1880 is recalculated each month.  But since the base has to stay at 14.00 degrees Celsius the program must be set to not allow changes in that period of time. I’m sure the programmers have fun with that. Prior work here has shown how this creates a teeter totter effect with the data plots, some of which have recently been significant.

Next 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 two black ovals on Chart 7 one at the top of Chart 7 which is a black oval around the CO2 levels from 2012 to 2016 and part of 2017 and it’s very obvious that there has been very little change, maybe 7 ppm or about 1.9%. Then at the bottom of Chart 7 is another black oval around the NASA global temperature levels for the same period and its very obvious that there has been a large change, almost .50 degrees Celsius or about 3.1%. 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 shows about the same increase for CO2 at 1.1% but no increase for global temperature but actually small decrease.

Clarification is needed here as the plot seems to show the jump in temperature in 2016 not 2015; this is a result of the 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 2015 showed the temperature at 15.12 degrees Celsius compared to December 2014 where it was 14.78 degrees Celsius. The actual peak was in February 2016 at 15.35 degrees Celsius.   With the global temperature over 15.0 Celsius at COP21 the climate accord was approved and the manipulation was a success. After COP21 the need for Fake Warming was no longer needed and so we are now seeing a downward trend developing.

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 all move in much longer cycles of decades and centuries.  Those other cycles 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.

In summary we have Chart 8 which shows why CO2 is not increasing the temperature of the planet by any meaningful amount. 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 temperature.  When we talk about weather and local temperatures its going be in Celsius (C) in the EU or degrees Fahrenheit (F) in America e.g. for the base temperature that NASA uses it’s 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) and that would be 287.150 K and all three of those numbers 14.00 C, 57.20 F, and 287.150 K are exactly the same temperature, just using a different base. But if the current temperature is 15.00 C that is a 7.1% increase in C, a 3.1% increase in F and a .35% increase in K; so which one is real? The answer is .35% because Kelvin is the only one that measures the total energy!

To show this graphically Chart 8 was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percentage increase from when it was first measured in 1958 the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up 28.3% by August of 2017. That is a large change as anyone would agree.  Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature using the proper units Kelvin we find that the changes in global temperature are almost unmeasurable. The red plot, also starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere has varied by less than +/- .17%; while CO2 has increased by 28.3% which is over 80 times that of increase in temperature. So is there really a problem here?

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 observed reoccurring patterns in the climate. 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 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.

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 very strong 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.

 

The Climate is Turning Colder not Warmer & This is Important to Watch


This video tends to try to blame future event upon humankind of course. By the historical Ice Age is really the point. Things are turning colder, not warmer. It is only relevant from the standpoint of the last ice age and how quickly to came about.

Do You Really Think Politicians Can Stop Climate Change?


COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong; It appears that politicians are attributing any change in the climate to human activity. They have simply either gone mad or just insane, seriously distorting everything to gain more power and taxes. Now  Christine Lagarde said: “As I’ve said before if we don’t do anything about climate change now, in 50 years’ time we will be toasted, roasted and grilled.” She is not even elected by anyone yet is dictating the trend globally.

PD

REPLY: Yes, the phrase “climate change” has come to mean “blaming humans for changing the climate by using oil and gas and coal.” They act as if the climate should be linear and always the same from one year to the next. They fail to even account for the historical record of ice ages and warming periods long before we started using oil, gas, or coal. There is no doubt that the climate is changing for that is the cyclical nature of all things. The only thing more absurd than blaming humans for “climate change” is assuming politicians can stop it from changing. They cannot find the missing $3 trillion+ from the defense budget no less manage the economy and prevent the business cycle from booms and busts.