Tag Archives: Dr. Ivar Giaever

Jan 10 2018

Extreme Volatility in Weather – Part of Climate Change?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Jan 10, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: It is crazy hot here in Sydney the exact opposite of the extreme cold in the north. Is there an explanation at all for this?

ANSWER:  Most people do not realize that the climate is actually “polar opposites.” Both the Arctic (North Pole) and the Antarctic (South Pole) are cold because they don’t get any direct sunlight.  However, though the North Pole and the South Pole are “polar opposites,” they both get the same amount of sunlight but there is a major difference. The South Pole is a much colder than the North Pole and this also contributes to the difference in climate experience around the globe.

The Arctic is ocean surrounded by land whereas the Antarctic in the South is in fact land surrounded by ocean. Consequently, the ocean under the Arctic ice is cold, yet the water is still warmer than the ice! So the ocean warms the air which it cannot do in the South. Antarctica is dry despite the ice. Under the ice and snow, you find land with mountain ranges, not ocean. As with any mountain range, the higher you go, the colder it gets. The actual average elevation of Antarctica is about 7,500 feet (2.3 km).

The extreme heat in Australian, reached 47c (116f), is more akin to the Middle East in summer. I went trekking through the valley of the Kings in Egypt when it was 50c (122f) and I was the only one out and about while everyone stayed in the hotel. As the energy output of the sun collapses, we will witness growing extremes in different regions. The last time it was this hot in Sydney goes back to the 1930s during the Dust Bowl people in the USA. The cycle in extremes appears to be 86 years so this is on target. Australia is dry and ripe for wildfires the same as we see in California. This will contribute to the decline in food supply globally.

Jan 9 2018

Climate Change – As if it was Supposed to Change


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Jan 9, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Your computer has proven it can forecast markets, economies, the rise and fall of governments, war, and now even weather well in advance of anyone else. Is this bitter cold just a taste of what is to come? If so, I definitely think it is time to follow you south before you can’t sell a house up here when interest rates also start to rise. Working in a bank, I know all too well as soon as there is any trouble, the lending stops. I suppose that is what you are warning about with your real estate forecasts as well.

FH

ANSWER: Unfortunately, this is the beginning of the decline. It will get worse. We are looking at a progressive period of colder weather for the first 13 years following 2015. There should be some oscillation and if there are any warm winters compared to this one, this will be an extension of the decline at least into 2032 with the more likely target off into 2045-2047. By the time this is finished, you will be willing to taxes to get global warming. The sad part of this whole mess is that the Global Warming crowd, while they are rolling around in their bed of cash rejoicing how much they made on this scam, they have led many people to their death by distracting people from the real fury of nature.

Extreme cold has reached from New England to the Midwest and down to the Carolinas, with temperatures dropping below zero. It has been in the 40s here at night in the Tampa region and it snowed a little in Tallahassee. The fatalities associated with the harsh conditions will continue to rise from drivers sliding off an icy road to the rise in disease. This will be a very dangerous rise in economic declines as well as temperature plummet during the winters ahead. It is so cold, any kind of exposed skin can freeze in a couple of minutes.” It was so cold, the attendance for New York City’s Times Square on New Year’s Eve was sharply lower.

I have written about this in the Mayan Report which I have called the clash between catastrophe and uniformity. There are simply people who want to believe that everything is uniform and tomorrow will be the same as today. Then there is the group of scientists who believe in cycles and understand that there is a natural rhythm to everything. In 1832, Professor Albrecht Reinhard Bernhardi (1797–1849) argued that the North Polar ice cap had extended into the plains of Germany. To support this theory, he pointed to the existence of huge boulders that have become known as “erratics” he suggested were pushed by the advancing ice. This was a shocking theory for it was certainly a nonlinear view of natural history. Bernhardi was thinking out of the box. The theory of climate change began to take shape. It had all began with the discovery of in 1772 near Vilui, Siberia of an intact frozen woolly rhinoceros followed by the more famous discovery of a frozen mammoth in 1787. You may be shocked, but these discoveries of frozen animals with grass still in their stomach, set in motion these two schools of thought of catastrophe and uniformity since the evidence implied you could be eating lunch and suddenly find yourself frozen to be discovered by posterity. It was this discovery that sparked the investigation into cycles which led to Haley’s Comet, the realization it was the same comet on a cycle, to Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) Theory of Evolution, which was also inspired by climate change that led to the survival of the fittest proposition. (see Mayan Report).

 

Jan 5 2018

Climate Change – Is the an OMG Event?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Jan 5, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

1709 Deep Freeze

 

QUESTION: Is it in your view a minor cold blip or “OMG we’re all going to freeze to death and run out of food ?”

BR

ANSWER: We are looking at an unbelievable decline in the energy output of the sun which appears to be the most rapid decline in nearly 10,000 years. The Global Warming crowd may be setting society up for mass famine and death because they are deliberately point everyone in the opposite direction to get their portion of the $1 billion grants. Natural disasters are the most disastrous when the energy output of the sun declines. There has been a fatal interaction of ecological, agricultural, economic, and political factors that seem to be setting the stage for at least a repeat of what is known as the Great Famine of 1315-1317. The Great Famine started with bad weather in spring 1315. Crop failures lasted through 1316 until the summer harvest in 1317, and Europe did not fully recover until 1322. The period was marked by extreme levels of crime, disease, mass death and even cannibalism and infanticide. The crisis set in motion the great economic collapse that began during the fourteenth century. In our arrogance, we seem to believe we have conquered every aspect of the planet and many argue we can even alter the climate of the planet.

The collapse from the Medieval Warm period was rapid, but also deadly. When the climate turned down, what followed was suddenly bitter cold winters and drenching rains which then froze. Europe had expanded as society always does in warm periods. Study have shown that desert rodent populations of many species tend to “fluctuate synchronously owing to pulses of primary production and seed availability during rainy years, and reduced seed production during droughts” (PLOS 2013).

BlackDeath-10

I have reported that plagues correlate to the decline in temperature. During the 14th century, there were warnings in the form of rumors that told of a great plague in China and India that killed most of the populations there. The plague made its way to Europe when the Kipchak forces were besieging the Genoese trading post in the Crimea (Ukraine). The Kipchaks began to catapult plague-infested corpses over the walls and into the trading post. The disease spread quickly and the Genoese abandoned the outpost. They sailed back to Europe stopping in Sicily in 1347 taking the Black Death with them.

Four centuries of global warming left Europe with mild temperatures, which were the highest in 8,000 years. This led to the great economic expansion and the rebirth of trade and the economy. In fact, gold began to reappear in the coinage after about 600 years. This was the Great Medieval Warming period that marked the rebirth of civilization following the fall of the Roman Empire. The European continent’s farmers expanded agriculture and planted crops on vast quantities of land previously unsuitable for agriculture. This led to the increased food supply which, like desert rodents, fueled a population explosion that tripled the number of people in medieval Europe.

First we have the sharp decline in weather. This resulted in those marginal lands that had been cultivated ceasing to produce crops as frosts and floods dominated the climate. Millions of extra mouths had to be fed and many died from the famine. Rebellions and civil wars emerged and this in turn exacerbated the  crisis. Then the terrible weather turned deadly and the first disease began to appear int the livestock. Two consecutive harvest failures in 1314 and 1315 launched seven years of famine, resulting in the deaths of between 5% and 12% of the population of northern Europe.

Yes, there have been famines caused by mankind. The worst in history remains that which occurred during the 20th century. This was the Russian famine created by Communism. Stalin’s forced collectivization program starved to death some 5 million Russians. Stalin took the food from Ukraine for Russia resulting in another 8 million Ukrainian deaths. Some 25 million Chinese died of hunger as a consequence of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, which also completely failed when bureaucrats try to run things from a central government perspective. Both of these modern famines were the result of Socialism/Communism taking the control away from the individual and handing it to bureaucrats in the central office.

My concern here is the correlations of pandemics to the decline in the energy output of the sun. That decline from the Medieval Warming Period set in motion what many call the Little Ice Age. Even after the extreme low, Europe is rapidly turning colder much faster than expected in what we would call technically a retest of the lows. That sharp decline was a real global cooling period for Europe known as the Deep Freeze of 1709. In the first few months of 1709 remained in a deep freeze that again wiped out food supplies. People were ice-skating on the canals of Venice, which against was highly unusual to see such cold that far south on the water. People could cross the Baltic Sea on horseback because it was completely frozen! You could not ring a church bell because it would shatter it was that cold.

Therefore, to answer the question do we face an OMG event with famine? The answer is yes! The worst of this may come during the 2020-2024 period. I have reported that it appears the next 8.6-year wave on the ECM appears to be setting up for a rally in commodities. That will include food.

Jan 4 2018

Tugboats Need Rescue in NYC


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Jan 4, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

This winter is very cold. It has even gone down to the 40s at night in Northern Florida. There is a mad rush to run out and buy coats down here. Meanwhile, in the LaLa-Land of corruption, New York City, the ice in the Hudson River keeps getting thicker. Historians had remarked that as the rivers in Europe froze solid, this allowed the barbarians to invade Rome. Perhaps those in New Jersey should sleep with one eye open that the hoards from Manhattan don’t invade looking for trinkets and food.

This ice is gett so think in the Hudson River that even the tugboats have to be rescued. As the ice is getting thicker, most boats just cannot handle this freeze.

Jan 3 2018

Solar Minimum The Fastest Decline in almost 10,000 Years


Armstrong Economics Blog/Ancient Economies

Re-Posted Jan 3, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

QUESTION: Hi Marty !

Happy new year! Not written in a while, but wanted to ask a private question related to the forthcoming cold period.

a) How long will it last? (It will start now and go into 2024 – when does Socrates say it will start to reverse and when will temperatures be back to where they are now ?)

b) How far south does someone have to go who is allergic to cold anyway? Is it best to keep away from volcanic islands?

c) Is it in your view a minor cold blip or “OMG we’re all going to freeze to death and run out of food ?”

Just so I know the prognosis. It would be helpful if you could ask Socrates the relevant questions as I think there are a number of folks who would n’t mind knowing the answers to these types of questions – privately !!!

Trust all is well with you.
BR

ANSWER: 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 wave should be a 13-year decline from 2015 making it 2028 at best. The outside projection calls for a 17-year decline and that lines up with the peak in the ECM 2032.

Worst still, the rate of decline will be brutal. This implies we are looking at the fastest decline in nearly 10,000 years. I suppose that is appropriate since we are also at a 5,000-year low in interest rates as well.

There is additional research correlating sunspot activity to planetary orbits. Real scientists are exploring climate change as a part of nature rather than man and the correlations are interesting. “The movement of planets, solar activity, and global climate change are increasingly being explored. The periodicity of solar activity along with the physical mechanism of the changing of the Sun is an important topic in solar physics” (may 2017 Annales Geophysicae (EGU). Unlike the Global Warming crowd pushing fake research to get $1 billion grants from government welfare, real investigation into global climate change and solar activity is an incredibly vital and important subject in geophysics, which government is not funding with handouts because it does NOT support raising taxes.

There was a German astronomer, Samuel Heinrich Schwabe (1789–1875), founder of the sunspot theory, who discovered a regular cycle or variation in the number of sunspots occurring over a 17-year span (Schwabe 1843). There was the Russian professor A. L. Tchijevsky (also spelled Chizhevsky) (1897–1964), who initiated Schwabe’s sunspot theory and plotted an 11-year cycle back to the 5th century BC (Chizhevsky 1924).

By 1900, the investigations into sunspots by the Russian scientist Tchijevsky began to explore the connections between solar variations, weather, and their impact on human activity. During World War I, Tchijevsky noticed between 1916 and 1917 (the period of peak sunspot activity and the solar explosions that followed) how these correlated with the war. He compared this with events in history to ascertain whether there was any connection. The historical database of 500 BC–1922 AD (a period of 2,422 years) that covered 72 countries was compiled (Tchijevsky 1938). He included in his compilations signs of human unrest and excitability such as wars, revolutions, riots, expeditions, and migrations.

Tchijevsky included additional factors, such as the number of humans involved, the quality of the event, and the size of the area affected. Additionally, he included the time when the unrest began, and its high point, which was reduced to arithmetical values of varying significance. With his volumes of data, Professor Tchijevsky constructed a year-by-year Index of Mass Human Excitability that covered the past 24 centuries in an amazing panorama of man’s emotional moods. After evaluating the most important events, Tchijevsky noticed that the most important human events had occurred during 80% of the maximum sunspot activity (Tchijevsky 1938).

The only problem with Tchijevsky’s work was still the one-dimensional thought process of trying to discover the single cause to the effect. The actual results are far more complex and dynamic. Yet Tchijevsky made a major contribution in investigating sunspots. Combining this data with ice core samples broadens the scope and now we begin to see climate take shape.

Additionally, we have to inject disease, plagues, and pandemics. When we add this data, we then begin to see it is the lack of sunspot activity that leads to disease, plagues, and pandemics. This, in turn, feeds migrations and was a leading cause of the invasion of Europe by the Huns. However, it was the Huns pushing West that drove the Goths to invade Rome.

Is the decline of the Roman Empire was in part also caused by climate change. Scientists have used tree rings to catalog the climate’s history. In fact, trees grow more during fertile years that result in thick tree rings. During dry years, trees rings grow far more narrowed and thus identify the climate cycle. Wood samples from sites throughout Europe collected from ancient Roman ruins have revealed that the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire coincides with a period of unusually thin rings implying cold and dry periods.

Correlating all the data from tree rings to ice cores and sunspot activity, what is clear is that society expands with Global Warming and collapses during Global Cooling. Voting for some political party (left or right) cannot change the climate. Politicians cannot even balance a budget, so they can play God?

Wet and warm summers occurred during periods of every expansion of civilization be it Sumerian to the modern Internet Age. The decline in the energy output of the sun is lethal to civilization. This contributed to the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire that was already economically weakened. The climate turned down from about 200AD and bottomed around 600AD.

The dry and cold period of the 3rd Century AD coincided with the economic decline of Rome, but it also provided the reason for the barbarian invasion. This led to the economic and political turmoil that resulted in the barbarians invading the northern provinces including Gaul. Once again, climate change was not the sole cause of the decline and fall. This contributed to the cause behind the barbarian invasions.

There were two major plagues that became pandemics during the Decline & Fall. There was one right following the top in about 180AD known as the Antonine Plague. But this was followed by Plague of Cyprian in the middle of the turbulent 3rd century and then the 6th-century Plague of Justinian, which may have finished the job. The ancient sources make the Plague of Justinian sound apocalyptic. The death toll in Constantinople was horrific died by the tens of thousands per day. The Emperor Justinian appointed a special officer, by the name of Theodore, in charge of coordinating the removal of corpses from the city’s streets. Theodore created mass graves with each pit filled with 70,000 corpses. We do know that archaeologists have assumed that mass mortality events go hand in hand with large, communal burials. The Justinian Plague appears to have resulted in a death toll of 35-55% of the population within just a few months during 555 AD quite similar to the Black Death of the 14th century.

Mass graves have been discovered concerning the Plague of Cyprian, in Egypt and Rome. The Plague of Cyprian (the Carthaginian bishop and eyewitness for whom the plague is named). Here the Plague began in Ethiopia around Easter of 250AD. It reached Rome in the following year by travel through trade and spread to Greece and then onto Syria. The plague lasted for about 20 years. At its peak, it was reported to have killed as many as 5,000 people per day in Rome.

Periods of drought, cold, floods, and famine exhausted the populations of the Roman Empire. St. Cyprian (200-258AD), bishop of Carthage, said at that time that it appeared as if the world was at an end.

There have been several protracted solar minimums since 1000 AD:

  1. Oort minimum (1040–1080 AD)
  2. Medieval Minor minimum (1150–1200 AD)
  3. Wolf minimum (1270–1350 AD)
  4. Spörer minimum (1430–1520 AD)
  5. Maunder minimum (1620–1710 AD)
  6.  Dalton minimum (1787–1843)

This post-Dalton minimum peaked strangely with the Economic Confidence Model 1989.95. The peaks in solar activity have been declining with each wave subsequent to that turning point. It is now declining faster than ever previously know for nearly the last 10,000 years. So keep an extra supply of canned goods. They might come in handy.

Jan 1 2018

The Coldest New Year – Ever?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Posted Jan 1, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

NASA’s photo of the Blizzard of 2018 shows just how cold this season is turning into. I have made it clear I moved from New Jersey to Florida trying to get closer to REAL Global Warming. Our computer, which correlates absolutely everything in all fields, forecast that this would be the coldest winter many have felt in their lifetime.As NASA wrote: “While the cold streak has not broken all-time records, it is breaking records for individual days.” It has made all-time records for most people’s lifetimes and that is cold.  Even here in Florida, it is down into the 50s (10-12 c) and that is about 10 degrees below normal.

It certainly gives me no pleasure to make such forecasts. But the sun is turning down in energy output and the Global Warming crowd is committing a heinous offense for their nonsense has distracted society from the real danger – Global Cooling. Correlations between temperature and disease are 100%. Turn down the temperature and you get an increase in pandemics.

What you also get is rising civil unrest that often manifests also into revolution. It was the 1918 pandemic that killed so many people and that same year stood witness to revolutions. It was the revolution in Germany during 1918 which installed the Weimar Republic and as capital fled, the government was left with nothing but paper to print currency to make reparation payments. So 1918 was a major event in politics as well as disease.

I suppose if Dick Cheney were still the real president, he would announce this cold weather is created by Russia and a secret machine to justify invading Canada, nuke the Northern Territories to warm things up a bit, and then hand all the natural resources to Haliburton.

Dec 31 2017

Public Library of Science Published No Evidence of Global Warming Caused by Humans


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Dec 31, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Even the renown Public Library of Science (PLOS) Organization has stated plainly there is no evidence of Global Warming caused by human activity.

“[O]nly 18% of the stations showed increases in water temperature that would be expected from global warming, partially reflecting the limits in detecting trends due to inherent natural variability of temperature data. Decreases in visibility were associated with increased human density. However, this link can be decoupled by environmental factors, with conditions that increase the flush of water, dampening the effects of human influence.

Dec 31 2017

2017/2018 the Coldest New Year Ever?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Dec 31, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

This may end up as the coldest New Year on RECORD! Bitterly cold temperatures across the Midwest and Northeast and up to FIVE FEET of snow look set to put 2018 celebrations on ice.

Where is Global Warming when we really need it?

Dec 30 2017

Sharks Are Washing Up in Massachusetts Completely Frozen


Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate

Re-Posted Dec 30, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Sharks are migrating south and some are not making it. They are washing up on the beach in Massachusets in cold shock or completely frozen. I suppose they too are trying to make it to real global warming

Dec 26 2017

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


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, and its historically accurate.  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 November 2017 there were 1,655 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 65 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 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 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. Also the temperature data from 1850 to 1880 was dropped for some reason as it showed a lower temperature that supported the PCM cycle shown in this paper.

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 about 28.5% by November 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.