+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

  1. Link to Post #1
    United States Avalon Member mpennery's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd February 2014
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Age
    49
    Posts
    940
    Thanks
    6,339
    Thanked 8,788 times in 913 posts

    Default Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    This week in Vancouver, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal carbon tax, a key pillar in his government’s climate policy, will help protect Canadians from extreme weather. “Extreme weather events are extraordinarily expensive for Canadians, our communities and our economy,” he said, citing the recent tornadoes in Ottawa and wildfires in Western Canada. “That’s why we need to act.”


    While members of the media may nod along to such claims, the evidence paints a different story. Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist at University of Colorado in Boulder who, up until a few years ago, did world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather. He found convincing evidence that climate change was not leading to higher rates of weather-related damages worldwide, once you correct for increasing population and wealth. He also helped convene major academic panels to survey the evidence and communicate the near-unanimous scientific consensus on this topic to policymakers. For his efforts, Pielke was subjected to a vicious, well-funded smear campaign backed by, among others, the Obama White House and leading Democratic congressmen, culminating in his decision in 2015 to quit the field.

    A year ago, Pielke told the story to an audience at the University of Minnesota. His presentation was recently circulated on Twitter. With so much misinformation nowadays about supposed climate emergencies, it’s worth reviewing carefully.


    Read the whole article:

    https://business.financialpost.com/o...cians-attacked


    Here is the link to all of his evidence in support of the above:

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/9...883376128.html

    I will include just one of the dozens of data points since many people like to say hurricanes have increased (exact opposite of reality).

    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness."
    - Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham

  2. The Following 37 Users Say Thank You to mpennery For This Post:

    Alan (9th June 2019), angelfire (9th June 2019), Apulu (9th June 2019), avid (9th June 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (10th June 2019), BMJ (9th June 2019), Bob (10th June 2019), Bubu (11th June 2019), Buzzie (9th June 2019), christian (9th June 2019), drneglector (9th June 2019), edina (1st September 2019), Hervé (9th June 2019), Ivanhoe (10th June 2019), Jayke (9th June 2019), justntime2learn (9th June 2019), Lefty Dave (9th June 2019), Maknocktomb (10th June 2019), Merry Mom (10th June 2019), Mike (9th June 2019), NancyV (2nd February 2020), Pam (3rd February 2020), pueblo (9th June 2019), RogeRio (1st September 2019), RunningDeer (9th June 2019), Sadieblue (10th June 2019), seko (2nd February 2020), Sophocles (10th June 2019), Star Mariner (11th June 2019), Sunny-side-up (9th June 2019), Tintin (9th June 2019), toppy (9th June 2019), Valerie Villars (9th June 2019), Wind (1st September 2019), wnlight (1st February 2020), XelNaga (12th June 2019), xylo (1st September 2019)

  3. Link to Post #2
    United States Avalon Member Buzzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th September 2014
    Age
    76
    Posts
    90
    Thanks
    615
    Thanked 405 times in 82 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    Can anyone please tell me how a tax can change the weather? Seriously.

  4. The Following 24 Users Say Thank You to Buzzie For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (10th June 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (10th June 2019), Blacklight43 (9th June 2019), BMJ (9th June 2019), DaveToo (11th June 2019), drneglector (9th June 2019), Gracy May (9th June 2019), Ivanhoe (10th June 2019), Jayke (9th June 2019), mpennery (9th June 2019), NancyV (2nd February 2020), Omi (10th June 2019), RogeRio (1st September 2019), Sadieblue (10th June 2019), seko (2nd February 2020), Star Mariner (11th June 2019), Sunny-side-up (9th June 2019), Tintin (9th June 2019), toppy (9th June 2019), Tyy1907 (10th June 2019), Wind (9th June 2019), wnlight (1st February 2020), XelNaga (12th June 2019), xylo (1st September 2019)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    62
    Posts
    3,722
    Thanks
    15,821
    Thanked 21,936 times in 3,488 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    Carbon tax monetizes pollution. That way, for example, a net-polluting province like Alberta can buy carbon credits from, say, Ontario, when they build wind turbines. The net carbon emission is set by government and then the various companies and industry set up a carbon exchange board. It is a bureaucratic morass more political than functional or pragmatic.

    The true purpose of the carbon tax is to make petroleum products more expensive so that alternative forms of energy production that are otherwise far more expensive can compete for market share and turn a profit - like solar, wind and other more exotic methods.

    The underlying reason for the carbon tax is that by curbing the amount of fossil fuels consumed, less carbon is released to the atmosphere and thus the carbon load in the air can be mitigated. It is a sound approach but it puts the cart before the horse. It is not reasonable to pass along the expense of 'climate change' to the public in order to sell us cleaner but far more expensive known energy sources.

    What should be happening is a redoubled and even tripled effort to explore truly new sources of energy production by actually doing pure R&D. The cost of that research would be many magnitudes less expensive than the present model will cost the average global citizen.

    The carbon tax is a form of centralized control that will ensure advances in fundamental research do not take place and the inefficient and expensive solar and wind technologies can be rolled out en masse.

    Stop-gap measures like these are always the brainchild of the elite who continually invent ways to centralize control and monetize every aspect of our lives.

    The carbon tax is a hoax.
    Last edited by Ernie Nemeth; 5th July 2019 at 14:37.

  6. The Following 25 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Alan (11th June 2019), avid (9th June 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (10th June 2019), BMJ (9th June 2019), Buzzie (9th June 2019), Chris Gilbert (1st September 2019), DaveToo (11th June 2019), drneglector (9th June 2019), Hervé (9th June 2019), Intranuclear (9th June 2019), Ivanhoe (10th June 2019), Jayke (9th June 2019), Justplain (20th February 2020), mpennery (9th June 2019), Patient (1st February 2020), RogeRio (1st September 2019), Sadieblue (10th June 2019), Sophocles (10th June 2019), Star Mariner (11th June 2019), toppy (9th June 2019), Valerie Villars (11th June 2019), Wind (9th June 2019), wnlight (1st February 2020), xylo (1st September 2019), yelik (11th June 2019)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Canada Avalon Member kfm27917's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th June 2019
    Location
    Kamloops BC
    Age
    80
    Posts
    83
    Thanks
    480
    Thanked 509 times in 77 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    i am a new member. I wonder if anybody has done an analysis of how much military fuel consumption (major powers) contributes to CO2 emmissions.

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to kfm27917 For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (10th June 2019), Buzzie (9th June 2019), mpennery (9th June 2019), Sunny-side-up (20th February 2020), Valerie Villars (11th June 2019), xylo (1st September 2019)

  9. Link to Post #5
    United States Avalon Member Intranuclear's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th August 2011
    Posts
    365
    Thanks
    1,585
    Thanked 2,229 times in 349 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    Quote Posted by kfm27917 (here)
    i am a new member. I wonder if anybody has done an analysis of how much military fuel consumption (major powers) contributes to CO2 emmissions.
    Well, you could google it: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22m...w=1920&bih=977

    But the numbers reported I think are garbage. All you have to do is google the number of commercial vessels (oil tankers, shipping tankers, etc) and compare that to number of military planes and military navy numbers and get a very good sense that most articles are extremely biased and use magic math, kind of like the magic math used in climate change.

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Intranuclear For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (10th June 2019), Buzzie (9th June 2019), Justplain (20th February 2020), mpennery (9th June 2019), RogeRio (1st September 2019), xylo (1st September 2019)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2012
    Posts
    2,431
    Thanks
    4,463
    Thanked 10,254 times in 2,147 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    Be careful or carfuel, that you aren't being patsies for Big Oil. Climate IS changing. To dismiss that is foolhardy. There may be other major factors at play here, but carbon emissions are likely a big part of the problem.

    I recently moved so I am walking distance to everything, so not reliant on a vehicle.But I also had to move because a hurricane blew through last winter and savaged my neighbourhood. Huge second growth trees falling everywhere. This is entirely uncustomary for this part of the world. It NEVER used to happen. Since 2005, this is the second hurricane to hit here. That was December. Then in February we got 2 feet of snow that stuck around until mid March. Again, unprecedented until recently. Now it is happening yearly.

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to AutumnW For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (10th June 2019), Ernie Nemeth (5th July 2019), Fellow Aspirant (10th June 2019), Patient (1st February 2020), Sadieblue (10th June 2019), Sunny (10th June 2019), Wansen (10th June 2019), xylo (1st September 2019)

  13. Link to Post #7
    Canada Avalon Member Fellow Aspirant's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th July 2011
    Location
    Kingston, Ontario
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,043
    Thanks
    6,002
    Thanked 5,262 times in 940 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    Although Pielke sees no link between hurricane frequency and climate change, he does not deny that climate change exists, and that humans are contributing to it. He thinks that changing human behaviour, even if it happens immediately, will have little effect on the problems:

    (from his Wikipedia entry)

    "Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions."[10] He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."[11][12]

    On the issues of hurricanes and climate change he has argued that the trend in increasing damage from hurricanes is primarily due to societal and economic factors (chiefly an increase in wealth density), rather than change in the frequency and intensity.[13]"

    B.
    A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.

    Albert E.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Fellow Aspirant For This Post:

    Sunny (2nd September 2019)

  15. Link to Post #8
    United States Avalon Member mpennery's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd February 2014
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Age
    49
    Posts
    940
    Thanks
    6,339
    Thanked 8,788 times in 913 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    This is not a debate about climate change Fellow Aspirant and AutumnW. Yes, we all know climate has been changing for billions of years, long before we were here, and will continue to do so long after we’re gone. However, the IPCC has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to manipulate and cherrypick data to suit their alarmist, globalist agenda. It’s founders have admitted in emails released by wikileaks exactly this and justified their unethical unscientific actions by essentially saying it was better for the planet to lie on the side of protecting it. They cannot therefore be trusted for science.
    I can easily present a case showing ALL establishment narratives of climate change and global warming are based on exactly the same manipulated data but this is not the place for this. The purpose of this post was to dispel the false claim that climate change, whether natural or man influenced, has NOT led to extreme weather events. And this conclusion was reached by dozens of scientists in peer reviewed journals from the side of the alarmists!
    Also, one or two strange hurricanes in one part of the world cannot be used to make judgements on GLOBAL trends. Did you even read the findings? 🙄

    Matt
    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness."
    - Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham

  16. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to mpennery For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (10th June 2019), Bob (10th June 2019), DaveToo (11th June 2019), Justplain (20th February 2020), RogeRio (1st September 2019), Snoweagle (3rd February 2020), Sunny-side-up (20th February 2020), T Smith (19th February 2020), Valerie Villars (11th June 2019), wnlight (1st February 2020), xylo (1st September 2019), yelik (11th June 2019)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Canada Avalon Member Fellow Aspirant's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th July 2011
    Location
    Kingston, Ontario
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,043
    Thanks
    6,002
    Thanked 5,262 times in 940 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    I always check out the bona fides of anyone making sweeping claims about our planet. I'd not heard of this guy before, so my first step was to have a look at his history, thus, the Wiki check. I have yet to read the full article, but I will now, as he seems a reasonable person. And I say reasonable, because he is on record as believing in the statements published by the IPCC. As such, I find it very curious that you think that you can would use his data to slag the IPCC. He agrees with them. No one can use his claims as "proof" that climate change is a hoax.

    His departures from most ways of responding to the threat of climate change seems to be that a) climate change is not responsible for extreme weather events, and b) that most of the pushed for changes with respect to human behaviour (ex carbon taxes) are a matter of "too little too late".

    I look forward to finding out what human behaviour modifications he has in mind to ameliorate the already evident changes to our planet that climate change is bringing.

    Brian
    A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.

    Albert E.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fellow Aspirant For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (10th June 2019), xylo (1st September 2019)

  19. Link to Post #10
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    17th December 2010
    Location
    Alberta - Canada
    Posts
    752
    Thanks
    901
    Thanked 4,131 times in 678 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    Quote Posted by AutumnW (here)
    Be careful or carfuel, that you aren't being patsies for Big Oil. Climate IS changing. To dismiss that is foolhardy. There may be other major factors at play here, but carbon emissions are likely a big part of the problem.

    I recently moved so I am walking distance to everything, so not reliant on a vehicle.But I also had to move because a hurricane blew through last winter and savaged my neighbourhood. Huge second growth trees falling everywhere. This is entirely uncustomary for this part of the world. It NEVER used to happen. Since 2005, this is the second hurricane to hit here. That was December. Then in February we got 2 feet of snow that stuck around until mid March. Again, unprecedented until recently. Now it is happening yearly.
    Hello everyone:

    Piers Corbyn

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

    is the man when it comes to climate change. We started out as global warming and now we are at climate change. A way to make people believe in global warming BUT the earth is cooling so climate change is correct BUT the global warming activists have led us down a trail of baloney that most people believe without ever checking the evidence.
    Piers Corbyn definitely believes in climate change..just not warming....

    chancy

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to chancy For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (10th June 2019), mpennery (11th June 2019), panpravda (10th June 2019), RogeRio (1st September 2019), yelik (11th June 2019)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Great Britain Avalon Member
    Join Date
    2nd May 2014
    Language
    English
    Posts
    999
    Thanks
    4,372
    Thanked 4,347 times in 908 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    As I understand changes in the sun's activity and possibly wider causes changes to the climate across the solar system.

    To me pollution is the big killer which has been blamed on the masses to support the global warming hoax and climate change for the purposes of stripping wealth.

    100 Global Energy and chemical firms are responsible for some 71% of global pollution

    So changes in the sun's activity and increase in global pollution will alter weather patterns, especially when they have weaponized weather by ionising the atmosphere through chemtrailing and HAAP technology which mess with the jetstream
    Last edited by yelik; 11th June 2019 at 11:11.

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to yelik For This Post:

    Justplain (20th February 2020), mpennery (11th June 2019), RogeRio (1st September 2019), Wind (11th June 2019), wnlight (1st February 2020), xylo (1st September 2019)

  23. Link to Post #12
    United States Avalon Member mpennery's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd February 2014
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Age
    49
    Posts
    940
    Thanks
    6,339
    Thanked 8,788 times in 913 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    [sigh] The environmental movement has been highjacked by this global warming /climate change NONSENSE. We argue over these fake issues while REAL environmental catastrophes (corporate and government created) go unreported and ignored.

    https://www.iceagenow.info/25-simple...-for-a-change/

    25 simple bullet points proving CO2 does not cause global warming: by a geologist for a change
    June 9, 2019 by Robert
    ‘Bullet points’ proving CO2’s innocence.

    Geologists know climate change unrelated to atmospheric CO2 occurred throughout Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. Yet the IPCC has no geologists among the hundreds of appointed authors of its Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 and its Sixth Report due in 2022. Thus IPCC incredibly lacks both geological input and long-term perspective.
    – Geologist Dr. Roger Higgs
    ___________________

    25 simple bullet points proving CO2 does not cause global warming: by a geologist for a change

    Dr Roger Higgs,
    Geoclastica Ltd, Technical Note 2019-11,
    6th April 2019, on ResearchGate

    We urgently need to expose the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy being forced upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by schools, universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and to denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the public, including those youngsters themselves.



    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...T_for_a_change

    Here are the 25 bullet points proving CO2’s innocence:

    1) Geologists know climate change unrelated to atmospheric CO2 occurred throughout Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. Yet the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no geologists among the hundreds of appointed authors of its Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 and its Sixth Report due in 2022 (see my Technical Note 2019-10). Thus IPCC incredibly lacks both geological input and long-term perspective.

    2) IPCC’s very existence relies on public belief in manmade or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) by CO2 emissions. Moreover its appointed authors, mostly government and university researchers, are nearly all biased by strong vested interests in AGW, i.e. reputations (publications, lectures) & continuance of salaries & research grants. Similarly, major universities have abandoned their scientific impartiality & integrity by hosting research institutes mandated to confirm & act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall Centre.



    3) The often-repeated ‘97% consensus among scientists that global warming is man’s fault’ (CO2 emissions) is untrue. It refers in fact to surveys of just a relatively small group of ‘climate scientists’ (a fairly new type of scientist, with strong incentives for bias; see Bullets 2 & 15), moreover only those who are ‘actively publishing’.

    4) ‘Climate change denier’ & ‘global warming denier’ are despicable & dishonest terms for ‘AGW doubters’. No educated person disputes global warming, as thermometers measured 1°C rise from 1850 to 2016 (with pauses).

    5) The ‘Greenhouse Hypothesis’, on which IPCC’s belief in AGW is based, is that atmospheric gases trap heat. But this old (19th century) notion is merely an idea, not a hypothesis, because it is untestable, impossible to prove in a laboratory as no experimental container can imitate Earth’s uncontained, well-mixed atmosphere.

    6) IPCC computer models are so full of assumptions as to be extremely unreliable, e.g. forecast warming for 1995 to 2015 turned out to be 2-3 times too high ! A likely reason is that the greenhouse idea is nonsense, as explained in recent publications by several scientists. See Bullet 19 for an equally drastic failure of IPCC models. See also https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-bl...-of-the-water/ https://principia-scientific.org/r-i-...ory-1980-2018/

    7) For about 75% of the last 550 million years, CO2 was 2 to 15 times higher than now. Evolution flourished, CO2 enabling plant photosynthesis, the basis of all life. Extinction events due to overheating by CO2 are unknown.

    8) Through the last 12,000 years (our current Holocene interglacial period), CO2 was a mere 250 to 290 ppm (parts per million), near plant-starvation level, until about 1850 when industrial CO2 emissions began, making CO2 climb steeply. Nevertheless CO2 today it is still only 412ppm, i.e. under half of one-tenth of 1% of our atmosphere



    9) Until man began adding CO2 about 1850, warming (determined from ‘proxies’ like tree rings) since the 1600AD Little Ice Age peak was accompanied by slowly rising CO2 (measured in ice cores). A simple explanation is CO2 release by ocean water, whose CO2-holding capacity decreases upon warming.

    10) Supporting this sign that CO2 is a consequence, not cause, of global warming, a published study of 1980-2011 measurements showed that changes in warming rate precede changes in CO2’s growth rate, by about a year.

    11) Since the 1850 start of man’s additions, CO2’s rise has generally accelerated, without reversals. In stark contrast, the post-1850 to present-day continuance of warming out of the Little Ice Age was interrupted by frequent small coolings of 1-3 years (some relatable to ‘volcanic winters’), plus two 30-year coolings (1878 to 1910, 1944 to 1976), and the famous 1998 to 2013 ‘global-warming pause’ or ‘hiatus’ (Wiki).

    12) This unsteady modern warming instead resembles the unsteady rise of the sun’s magnetic output from 1901 toward a rare solar ‘Grand Maximum’ peaking in 1991, the first in 1700 years !

    13) Modern warming reached a peak in February 2016. Since then, Earth has cooled for 3 years (now April 2019).

    14) The ‘Svensmark Theory’ says increased solar magnetic flux warms Earth by deflecting cosmic rays, thus reducing cloudiness, allowing more of the sun’s warmth to heat the land and ocean instead of being reflected. In support, a NASA study of satellite data spanning 32 years (1979-2011) showed decreasing cloud cover.

    15) Vociferous IPCC-involved climate scientist Dr Stefan Rahmstorf (Wiki) of the German government’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, recipient of a US$1 million personal research grant from a private foundation, wrongly said in his 2008 article ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’: “there is no viable alternative … [to CO2 as driver of modern warming from 1940 to 2005 because] … different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase” during that period. Yet nine years earlier, in 1999, famous physicist Dr Michael Lockwood (Wiki; FRS) wrote, in ‘A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field During the Past 100 Years’, published in prestigious Nature journal: “the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964” and 2.3 since 1901 !! See for yourselves the striking overall 1964-91 climb in solar-magnetic output, recorded by the strong overall fall in detected neutrons (proportional to cosmic rays), in graph 3 here … https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi



    16) Lockwood showed averaged solar magnetic flux increased 230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled ! The final peak value was 5 times the starting minimum value ! Bullets 17 & 18 likewise back Svensmark’s theory…

    17) … after the previous solar Grand Maximum (4th century, long before industrial CO2), in the next decades Earth warmed to near or above today’s temperature. Then ‘sawtooth’ cooling proceeded, through the Dark Ages and ‘Medieval Warm Period’, into the Little Ice Age, paralleling a 1,000-year unsteady solar decline; and …

    18) … before that, between 8000 and 2000BC, Earth was occasionally warmer than today for hundreds if not thousands of years, as shown by tree rings, shrunken glaciers, etc.. Then unsteady cooling from 3000BC into the Little Ice Age paralleled unsteady solar decline following the Holocene’s ‘super-Grand’ Maximum near 3000BC.

    19) This 4,500-year cooling contradicts IPCC computer models that instead predict warming by the simultaneous (slow) rise in CO2. This is the ‘The Holocene Temperature Conundrum’ of Liu et al. (2014). See also Bullet 6.

    20) Embarrassingly for AGW promoters, the 8000-2000BC warm interval (Bullet 18) was already, ironically, named the ‘Holocene Climatic Optimum’, before today’s CO2/AGW hysteria began. The warmth probably benefitted human social development. Indeed, it was cold episodes, bringing drought and famine, that ended civilisations.

    21) Cross-correlating post-1880 graphs of solar-magnetic flux versus Earth’s temperature suggests a 25-year timelag, such that the 2016 peak temperature corresponds to the 1991 solar peak. The lag is probably due to the ocean’s high thermal inertia due to its enormous volume and high heat capacity, hence slow response to warming.

    22) IPCC, ignoring the possibility of such a time-lag, claims that simultaneous global warming (until 2016) and solar weakening (since 1991) must mean that warming is driven by CO2 !

    23) The last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago was warmer than our Holocene interglacial. Humans and polar bears survived ! CO2 was then about 275ppm, i.e. lower than now (Bullet 8).

    24) The simultaneous rise of temperature & CO2 is a ‘spurious correlation’. Warming’s real cause was a solar build-up to a rare Grand Maximum, which man’s industrialisation accompanied by chance. So IPCC demonising CO2 as a ‘pollutant’ is a colossal blunder, costing trillions of dollars in needless & ineffectual efforts to reduce it.

    25) Global cooling now in progress since February 2016 can be predicted to last at least 28 years (i.e. to 2044), matching the sun’s 28-year decline from 1991 to today, and allowing for the 25-year time-lag (Bullet 21). Inescapable conclusion: IPCC is wrong − the sun, not CO2, drove modern global warming.

    Here’s some information about Dr. Higgs
    http://www.geoclastica.com/BudeGeoWalks.htm

    Thanks to Dr Roger Higgs for this link

    Contact rogerhiggs@hotmail.com for literature sources for any of the aforementioned ‘Inconvenient Facts’
    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness."
    - Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham

  24. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to mpennery For This Post:

    Buzzie (11th June 2019), Justplain (20th February 2020), Maknocktomb (12th June 2019), RogeRio (1st September 2019), Star Mariner (11th June 2019), T Smith (19th February 2020), Valerie Villars (11th June 2019), wnlight (1st February 2020), yelik (11th June 2019)

  25. Link to Post #13
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    982
    Thanks
    273
    Thanked 3,776 times in 856 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    It appears carbon dioxide CANNOT cause warming. Here's a blurb from last night's Coast to Coast guest:

    In the first half, research geophysicist with the United States Geological Survey for 27 years, Dr. Peter Langdon Ward weighed in on the climate change controversy. He helped develop and manage a major national research program, chaired a committee at the White House, testified before Congress, worked on a committee for Vice President Gore, and published more than 50 scientific papers. Ward confirmed that climate change and global warming are real, but instead of being caused by greenhouse gases, he argued that it was brought about by ozone depletion. Though the majority of scientists subscribe to the greenhouse warming hypothesis, Ward suggested that it's based on faulty assumptions and has never been scientifically proven. The theory that greenhouse gases absorb thermal and infrared energy from Earth which cause the planet to get hotter is flawed because "a body cannot be warmed by its own radiation," he stated.

    The ozone layer, while continually replenishing itself, becomes depleted and thinner because of the overuse of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and this is what has led to the warming, Ward continued. The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, phased out the use of substances responsible for ozone depletion, but it was recently discovered that since 2010, parts of China had a major increase in the use of chemicals such as CFCs. Once this was revealed by international agencies, the Chinese government took action to stop the usage of these problematic substances, Ward reported. Climate changes, he added, are not so much cyclic as erratic, as exemplified by the chaotic effects brought upon by volcanic activity.

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Justplain (20th February 2020), RogeRio (1st September 2019), ryanfraser (2nd September 2019), Star Mariner (12th June 2019)

  27. Link to Post #14
    Australia Avalon Member BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th May 2010
    Posts
    1,375
    Thanks
    38,340
    Thanked 6,475 times in 1,216 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    Creator Of Global-Warming's Infamous "Hockey Stick" Chart Loses 'Climate-Science' Lawsuit

    Quote:
    "Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.....

    Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, is the creator of the “hockey stick graph” that appears to show global temperatures taking a noticeable swing upward in the era when humanity has been burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

    The graph was first published in 1998, prominently featured in the 2001 UN Climate Report, and formed part of Al Gore’s 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth."

    Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...cience-lawsuit
    Last edited by BMJ; 1st September 2019 at 12:58.
    In hoc signo vinces / In this sign thou shalt conquer

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to BMJ For This Post:

    Deux Corbeaux (1st September 2019), edina (1st September 2019), Justplain (20th February 2020), RogeRio (1st September 2019), silvanelf (2nd September 2019)

  29. Link to Post #15
    Brazil Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th June 2019
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Language
    Portuguese
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    1,854
    Thanked 1,958 times in 376 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    Quote Posted by mpennery (here)
    We urgently need to expose the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy being forced upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by schools, universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and to denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the public, including those youngsters themselves.
    Fully Agree .. and I would like to add a kind of "counter-inteligence" argumentation,
    that is not in the 25 listed, and does not need much knowledge to comprove it.

    The control of CO2, ultimately implies the control of Life Resources,
    (because plants use the CO2 to form organic molécules and free oxigen)
    (that feed all the whole food chain).

    At first, the more CO2, plants (phytoplanktons) and (sun)Light, more O2 and organic molecules could be produced by nature.

    that way, CO2 tax can be seen as an Life TAX, and could be considered an absurd.

    note, I'm not talking anythink against pollution control -- its only about the CO2 and the organic substances.

    CO2 it's innocent .. represents only 0,035% of atmosphere gases
    Last edited by RogeRio; 1st September 2019 at 23:14.

  30. Link to Post #16
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    982
    Thanks
    273
    Thanked 3,776 times in 856 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    Here's a good article on the climate hoax:

    https://wentworthreport.com/stop-the-climate-stupidity/

    too long to post all the content, but worth a read

    Stop The Climate Stupidity
    by David Archibald
    29 January 2019


    When I got involved in global warming over a decade ago, the promoters of that cult wanted Australia to reduce its coal consumption by 20%. It was easy enough to predict that doing that would damage our economy and reduce our standard of living.

    Here we are today. The damage has been done, and is getting worse. State governments have gleefully blown up coal-fired power stations in fits of religious ecstasy. As a consequence we have just had the summer blackouts that were also so easily predicted. One sign of an advanced civilization is a stable, cheap, and reliable electrical power. We used to have one of those. We now rely upon diesel generators in part, like most third world countries.

    The cost of following the whacko religion of global warming isn’t just economic. It is also destroying lives, ending some before their time, and destroying businesses, hopes, and dreams.

    It need not be this way of course. We can go back to having a first world power system, and we could choose the correct path to go from here. This is not a multiple choice exercise though. There is only one correct path. If we don’t take that path we will be staring into the abyss, before we fall into it.

    First of all, let’s understand how we got into the dreadful situation of having whackos in charge of our power supply.

    Brazil had an election last year and the corrupt and incompetent socialists were thrown out and replaced by people who seem to understand how the world works. The first words out of the mouth of Brazil’s new foreign minister were that climate change is a Marxist plot.

    Why would he say that? Actually he is only repeating what the Marxists doing the plotting have been saying.

    Maurice Strong, organiser of the first UN climate summit, 1992:
    “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

    US Senator Tim Worth, 1992:
    “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

    Richard Benedick, US State Department, 1992:
    “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”

    Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, 1988:
    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    Mikhail Gorbachev, former chief communist of the planet, 1996:
    “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

    Jacques Chirac, former president of France, 2000:
    “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

    The roots of the global warming plot go back to the 1980s but got a kick along with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. Suddenly the left wing side of politics had no basis for existence. Socialism was discredited by its failure — so there was no need to rule the world, interfere in people’s lives, and take income from workers and give it to bludgers.

    So the threat of global warming was conjured up on no evidence. Thus that last statement that a global warming treaty didn’t need evidence. That is, it didn’t need to be based in scientific fact. Science fiction will do the trick.

    It wasn’t just high level bureaucrats making these statement about what the real motives for global warming are. Heads of state and ministers of state were and remain fully on board for the New World Order. This is the real reason for the global warm hysteria we have endured.

    What about the climate officials and scientists? What do they think it is about? They are all on the same page. It is about taking from workers and giving the fruit of their labor to bludgers. And being in charge of the whole process. The scientists involved have realized that they are paid to lie in public, to mislead the public. And also that their voodoo science doesn’t have anything to do with what is really happening in climate.

    Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC official, 2010:
    “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

    Stephen Schneider, lead author of IPCC reports:
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

    Kevin Trenberth, lead author of IPCC reports:
    “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

    See that last statement — that none of the climate models even remotely correspond to the current state of the climate? That has been going on for at least 20 years.

    Tom Wigley, National Center for Atmospheric Research, to Michael Mann:
    “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

    Tim Wills, Swansea University, 2007:
    “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

    None of these people have died for what they have done – only little old ladies in Australia who can’t afford heating in winter.

    The first quote above, from the Climategate emails, reflects the normal dishonesty and lying that goes on in official climate science. The second one sounds a note of alarm at this sort of behavior. He also raises the possibility that we could be experiencing just a normal climate cycle –- something that doesn’t have anything to do with carbon dioxide.

    There was a story in Quadrant last year by a bloke who lost his mother to pneumonia. With the rapid rise in power prices she thought she couldn’t keep the heating on, and never recovered from catching a cold. Mortality does start rising as the temperature of a home falls below 17 degrees Celsius. Her story was told and documented. There are so many others that aren’t, their lives foreshortened by a whacko religion, dying in the cold and the dark.

    Thanks to the global warming believers amongst us, each winter now comes with a bitter harvest of dead grannies. We can blame the global warmers for this situation — but if we don’t do what we can to stop this and set things to right then we share the blame for not acting. We are the responsible adults, with a grip on reality, and so the deaths of little old ladies in unheated homes and all the other attendant destruction that the global warming cult has wrought is also on our heads. We should know better, we can do better and we must not abide this.

    The threat to Australia is also existential. Destroying our power supply weakens us economically, so we are also less able to defend ourselves. The ultimate goal of the global warmers is to subsume our country into a UN-run third world morass. We know that because people from the UN have said that is their plan — witness Ms Figueres above, as nasty a leftie as God has ever breathed life into.

    So far we have established that the motives of the global warmers are impure. That global warming has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, saving the planet, or any other cause good and noble. It is just a con job, of repeating an outrageous lie so often that it starts to get traction.

    Having established that, we could just set things to right, stop the waste of tens of billions of dollars and get on with our lives as we would like to live them.

    But the one good thing that the global warming scare did was to concertina several decades’ worth of climate science into a few short years. We now know a lot more about what drives climate than we did a decade ago. So while we are here we might as well look at what is happening to our climate and what is going to happen. Without wanting to spoil the ending, it doesn’t involve global warming.

    To put that story into perspective let’s start with the question “has the world warmed?”

    The place to begin is global sea ice area. This is measured by satellites that went up 40 years ago in 1979, on a daily basis. If the world was warming, ice would be melting. The global sea ice anomaly, the red line, is as flat as a biscuit. No global warming here.

    The satellites also measure the temperature of the atmosphere. The average temperature of the Earth’s surface is close to 15°C. The chart above shows the departure of the lower atmosphere from the average of the 30 years from 1979 to 2010. As at last December, in 40 years of measurements, we are 0.25°C above that average. So there has been a little bit of warming but the trend is very weak.

    What about Australia in particular? The range is wider but temperature were higher a couple of decades ago. Forty years of data and the only trend is sideways.

    Graphs can be a bit scary, and a bit misleading, when the data displayed fills the whole space of the graph. So the graph above plots the world lower atmospheric temperature from the second last slide on the daily temperature range of 10°C predicted for Perth on 22nd January this year. It would be a very sensitive person indeed who could detect the temperature range of the planet over the last 40 years. That is another way of saying that the climate has been very stable. Nothing has happened and there is no suggestion that anything is going to happen.

    We’ve had a look at sea ice and the atmosphere. The last big thing to look at is the oceans. They have already started cooling. The graph above shows the temperature of the Gulf Stream on a transect in the North Atlantic. Cooling of the Gulf Stream started over a decade ago. If the oceans are cooling, the planet is cooling because the oceans have almost all the mass of the climate system.

    This is another way of looking at that data on the Gulf Stream. This graph shows the temperature profile across that transect down to 800 metres. The 8°C water used to be held down to 600 metres below the surface. Now in winter there are spikes of that cold water up to the surface. Why would the oceans be ignoring global warming?

    What has happened to our experience as Australians? Some records show warming in our lifetimes, as in the Cape Otway record above, but have only risen to the temperatures that prevailed at Federation.

    Newcastle’s temperature record is nearly 160 years long and it shows much the same thing — cooling up to 1960 and then a rise equal to the fall. We are back to the temperatures our great grandparents experienced. And nothing more than that. The port of Newcastle exported 158.6 million tonnes of coal in 2018. If only some of that coal could be used in Australia to provide winter heating for our elderly. Foreigners get to use our coal while we miss out. The mental gymnastics involved in justifying that are beyond the scope of this lecture. But as a mental illness it ranks up there with gender dysphoria and I don’t need to tell you how bad that is.

    Enough of concentrating on our own needs, our ability to provide for the indigent, the frail, the elderly, those of lesser means, our brothers and sisters in the twilight of their lives trying to self-sufficient and not being a burden to others. We will leave those narrow, selfish concerns aside for the moment and go back to worrying about the planet. The graph above shows the longest temperature record on the planet, the Central England Average Temperature from 1659.

    There are a few interesting things on this graph. It captures the second half of the Maunder Minimum that started in 1645. This was a period of low solar activity that resulted in low temperatures. The decade centered on 1695 was the coldest decade in the last one thousand years. That cold killed off a third of the population of Finland.

    By the 1730s things were back to normal. Then out of the blue came the cold event of 1740. This killed off 20% of the population of Ireland, about one hundred years before the more famous potato famine that started in 1845. Nobody knows what caused that one-off super cold year. There is nothing in the solar record that suggests a cause. That implies it could happen again any time.

    The Dalton Minimum was due to two consecutive weak solar cycles at the start of the 19th century. The Thames froze over in central London as a consequence. The temperatures of the last 20 years weren’t much above those of the early 18th century, 300 years before.

    Now we reach back further in time. The graph above is a temperature reconstruction to the year of Christ’s birth. What it shows is that we have just got back to the temperatures of a thousand years ago when grapes grew in northern England, and a thousand years before that when grapes grew in northern England. It is starting to look like there are climatic cycles, the prospect of which got Tim Wills of Swansea University so concerned. And so he should be, as a self-confessed conspirator in a giant fraud.

    We must not linger here. On to the Holocene, which is the name given to the interglacial period we are living in. Temperatures were a couple of degrees higher six thousand years ago and sea level was two metres higher. The global warmers would hate it, but the scientists who named this period called it the Holocene Optimum because climate was far more pleasant than it is at the moment. It is called an “optimum” because it was warmer than it is now. Since that best of times, temperature has been falling by 0.25°C per thousand years and water has become locked up in the ice sheets, causing sea level to fall. Which is what happens before we plunge into a glaciation.

    What that means is shown on this graph. This is one of the scariest graphs ever produced. It is a continuous temperature record from a core hole drilled by the Russians on the Antarctic ice plateau. It shows four glaciations, about 100,000 years apart. The interglacial periods are only little interludes in the millions of years of grinding ice. Some might think that our current climate is normal. It’s not — it is a special, wonderful time in which a vast area of the planet can be put under the plough or otherwise bear great forests stretching thousands of kilometers. Normally ice sheets extend to below the Canadian border and across the north German plain.

    How this came about was that Antarctica drifted over the South Pole 40 million years ago. It became a giant refrigerator for the planet. The oceans started cooling and ocean bottom temperatures dropped 10°C. Ice sheets started forming on Antarctica and the process became self-perpetuating. Sea level dropped 70 meters. Three million years ago glaciations started. They could go on for another 30 million years.

    You may not be worried about what will happen 30 million years out. How about 3,000 years out? This is less time than we have had civilization — the first pyramids were built 5,000 years ago. What is shown above is the interglacials from the previous graph superimposed and aligned on peak temperature. We are living in the Holocene which is the purple one. If the Holocene ends up like the Eemian, the previous interglacial, we have 3,000 years of good times left, at maximum. No interglacial has lasted longer than that. Then we plunge into the next glacial period.

    Among other things, Australia will be subjected to fierce winds from the south. If you look at satellite imagery of northern Australia, there are sand dunes marching into King Sound from the last glacial period. Once the next one starts, most of Australia will become a cold and very dry desert. Until then we should enjoy what we have.

    An anonymous academic produced the graph above. The red line is the glacial record and the coloured line is his model. The hindcast match is good. The deepest point of the next glaciation is 55,000 years away, and the next interglacial 80,000 years out.

    That is climate sorted — where we have been and where we are going.

    It’s time to move on to carbon dioxide, the friendly molecule that sustains all life.

    The greenhouse gasses keep the planet 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be if they weren’t in the atmosphere. Thus the average temperature of the Earth’s surface is 15°C instead of -18°C. Of that 33°C, 80% of the effect is from water vapor, 10% from carbon dioxide, with methane and other things making up the balance.

    So if the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide is 300 ppm and the carbon dioxide contribution is 3°C, you could be forgiven if you thought that the heating effect of carbon dioxide was 1°C per 100 ppm. We are putting an extra 2 ppm of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year so that is 100 ppm every 50 years. At that rate we would fry.

    But the heating effect of carbon dioxide is not arithmetic, it is logarithmic. As the graph above shows, the first 20 ppm accounts for half of the heating effect to date. By the time we get to the current level of 408 ppm each extra 100 ppm will cause 0.1°C of warming, not 1.0°C of warming. Carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. Its effect from here is inconsequential. It will do other good things but we can’t count on it to heat the planet much. In fact its effect will be lost in the noise of the climate system. It won’t even mitigate the cooling that is coming.

    This graph takes the data from the previous graph and sums it up in one column. Half the heating effect comes from the first 20 ppm. The heating effect from the pre-industrial level is theoretical — there is no evidence for it in the climate record.

    By the time we have dug up all the rocks we can burn, and burnt them, we might get to 600 ppm. Then the remorseless, 800 year turnover of the oceans will take most of that down into the Davy Deep and we won’t see it again. There is 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans as carbon dioxide than there is in the atmosphere. There is very rapid exchange of carbon dioxide between the oceans and the atmosphere, but only with the top 100 meters or so of the ocean above the thermocline. The average half life of a carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere is only five years. The atmosphere is in equilibrium with the top 100 meters of the ocean but not with the rest of the 3,700 meter water column.

    So after 800 years or so, the time it takes the ocean to turn over, 98% of the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere will dissolve into the oceans and the balance of 2% will be in the atmosphere. When that happens it will be a very bad thing indeed.

    We will get on to that but first let’s examine the global warmer belief system. We know that carbon dioxide’s heating effect is logarithmic and that it is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas, and we know that the global warmers know that too. So how do they produce their dire predictions of a 6°C rise in temperature, and some up to 10°C, for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide when we are barely going to notice the warming that will happen?

    What follows is the magic belief system that is the basis of global warming science. They take the little bit of heating from carbon dioxide and say that the slightly warmer atmosphere will hold a little bit more water. Water is a greenhouse gas so it in turns makes the atmosphere a bit warmer and so it can hold more water. And so on, ad infinitum until they get the warming they need to scare them. This relies upon the climate system being susceptible to a runaway effect instead of having negative feedbacks, as it does.

    But the strangest thing about it is that the global warming belief system starts at exactly the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide, not more, not less. Why doesn’t it start at 20 ppm, or 80 ppm or 120 ppm? Methinks that if there is a compounding water vapor effect then it will also be tuckered out by now too.

    It is staggering that such an asinine belief system has held sway over our polity for over a decade now. In the meantime the dead bodies pile up.

    The greenies and nasty lefties among us are a reliable contra-indicator. Whatever they say, the opposite is the correct position. That axiom holds for carbon dioxide. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is wholly beneficial.

    As some of the previous slides have shown, the Earth is not long out of a glacial period. The coldest period of that glacial interval was only 15,000 years ago. As the title of the figure above says, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere became dangerously low. It was at starvation levels for plants, and since we eat plants, and things that eat plants, it was dangerously low for us too.

    Luckily the Holocene came along, the oceans warmed a bit and coughed up a bit of carbon dioxide to share with the atmosphere. And potential disaster was averted. But one day the oceans will cool and want their carbon dioxide back, and then things will get grim again.

    The effect of increasing levels of carbon dioxide on plant growth have been quantified in lots of studies, because it is an easy thing to do. Bear in mind that the plants we eat evolved when the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was 1,200 ppm, three times what it is now. So plants are optimized for much higher carbon dioxide levels. For them we are still in starvation territory. Plants traps carbon dioxide by respiring water at the rate of 100 water molecules for each carbon dioxide molecule. So now they can grow a lot more for a given amount of water relative to 50 years ago.

    The effect is 0.3% per 1 ppm. We are putting 2 ppm of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year so grain yields are rising 0.6% per annum.

    What the last figure shows is that growth effect superimposed on the carbon dioxide levels in Antarctic ice cores going back 800,000 years. At their worst, at the 180 ppm of 15,000 years ago, we would only be able to grow half of what we do now. And that was the best of times, unspoiled by the hand of Man? Something to be wished for? I don’t think the global warmers have thought through their fear of carbon dioxide completely.

    What was illustrated in the last figure happens every day of the week in commercial greenhouses. When the Sun comes up the carbon dioxide level drops as the plants suck it down. Then growth stops when the level gets to 150 ppm odd, as their respiratory system can’t work against the partial pressure in their cells. As the ad says, add carbon dioxide to your greenhouse for substantially increased plant production. That goes for the whole planet too.

    Global warming is wishful thinking at best:

    It can’t happen in theory.
    There is no evidence for it in the climate record.
    All the evidence says that the more carbon dioxide
    in the atmosphere, the better.

    There is no global warming, only natural cycles on various scales from one day to tens of thousands of years. That much maligned molecule, carbon dioxide, is innocent of all charges. In fact we are going to miss it when most of the carbon we assiduously dug up gets sucked down into the deep oceans and we will never see it again. Because grain production will fall away with the falling carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and a lot of people are going to starve. That is a few centuries out.

    There was a mild, pleasant and much appreciated slight warming of the atmosphere late last century. All things in climate have a cause, so what was the cause of that? It turns out that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than it had been for the last 10,000 years. Energy from the Sun is what stops the Earth looking like Pluto, and the level of that energy does change slightly.

    The most readily apparent change in solar activity is the solar cycles. This is an eleven year cycle in the number and area of sunspots on the Sun’s surface. We have good solar cycle records from 1749. The current solar cycle, 24, is expected to end late this year. Indications are that the next solar cycle, 25, should be of a similar magnitude to 24. After 70 years of higher solar activity we will be going back to the 19th century level of solar activity.

    That is readily illustrated by the open solar flux, a data series maintained by the Dutch weather bureau, the KNMI. There is a lag between solar activity and Earth’s climate, due to the thermal mass of the oceans, so the cooling from going back to 19th century levels of activity is yet to hit. Weather will become a lot more changeable in the mid-latitudes that grow most of our grain.

    This graph plots solar activity back to 10,000 years ago. That 20th century spike in activity was the biggest for at least 10,000 years. It didn’t grow warm enough to grow grapes in northern England, as was done 1,000 years ago in the Medieval Warm Period or 2,000 years ago in the Roman Warm Period. The spike in solar activity we have lived through was just too short to do much warming.

    The graph above is of the aa Index, effectively a measure of the Sun’s magnetic field strength. This is the longest record on the planet of electromagnetic activity. The aa Index begins in 1868, when stations in London and Melbourne started recording.

    Years ago on the climate blog Watts Up With That, an anonymous comment said to the effect “You idiots. Changing climate is explained by the Sun’s magnetic field. Nothing else matters.” Certainly the Modern Warm Period is marked by a solar magnetic field that is 50% stronger than the level prevailing in the last years of the Little Ice Age.

    How that works is that the Sun’s magnetic field, carried on the solar wind, pushes galactic cosmic rays away from the inner planets of the solar system. So there are fewer particle collisions in the upper atmosphere to cause showers of neutrons in the lower atmosphere where clouds form. Clouds reflect about 40% of light whereas the open ocean only reflects 5%. So if there are fewer clouds then more sunlight gets through to the Earth’s surface and heats things up. Where it all begins is in the solar magnetic field.

    The aa Index helps us nail down the beginning and end of the Modern Warm Period to the year. There is nothing sloppy about our science.

    The graph above shows the cumulative departure from the average of the 150 year record. The higher activity from 1933 is immediately apparent as is the turn around in 2006. We had 75 years of higher solar magnetic flux which got some people hot and bothered. The fact that this period coincided with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was just that, a coincidence. That is why the planet is cooling now instead of warming even though the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues rising. Because carbon dioxide had little to do with the warming.

    This interpretation is corroborated by the Be10 record, shown above for the Dye 3 ice core in Antarctica. Be10 is formed in the upper atmosphere by high energy particles hitting oxygen and nitrogen atoms. So the production rate of Be10 reflects the solar magnetic field strength. The major climate events of the last 600 years show up in this record – the low levels of Be10 of the Modern Warm Period, the spike upwards at the end of the 19th century, the Dalton Minimum and the big spike at the end of the 17th century that killed so many people in the Baltics.

    We can measure the neutron count at the Earth’s surface from the galactic cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere far above. The flux varies greatly over the solar cycle and thus the number of nucleation sites for cloud formation vary over the solar cycle. The neutron count has been measured from the 1960s. The 1970s cooling period shows up in this record. The peaks in the record are the solar minima. The peak for the solar cycle occurs one year after solar minimum, so we are about two years out to the next peak, likely to be a record high.

    If the amount of cloud cover changes over the solar cycle then the amount of sunshine heating the oceans would also change over the solar cycle. We should be able to measure that in the rate at which sea level changes from year to year. And so we do. The graph above shows the correlation between the changing rate of sea level rise (blue line) and solar cycles (red line). Not surprisingly, the Sun is a big influence on climate.

    One of the strongest correlations between solar activity and water level is Lake Victoria in East Africa, shown in the graph above. The relationship was immediately evident once lake levels started being recorded early last century. Then the relationship broke down from the beginning of the Modern Warm Period and resumed 40 years later in the 1970s. As the rains around Lake Victoria come mostly from the west then the cycle in the lake level most likely reflects the amount of cloud cover over the Congo.

    We are told that sea level is rising rapidly and the rate is accelerating. We are told that rising sea level is going to wipe out the world as we know it. I have heard of people who have believed this official line and sold up their property on the coast at Bunbury to move up on the Darling scarp. The graph above shows the official sea level rise, as measured by satellites, from the early 1990s. It is a straight line move that you can extrapolate for years ahead and estimate the remorseless inundation that is in our future.

    This graph doesn’t gel with people’s lived experiences of sea level. People who have used the same jetty for decades have not noticed any change in sea level. Nobody has seen 6 centimeters of sea level rise in the last 30 years. What’s correct — the official global warming graph of sea level rise or what people have seen for themselves?

    As this graph shows, the official global warming graph of sea level rise was created by adjusting the data until it produced a result that allowed the scientists involved to keep their jobs. The lower line is the raw data from the satellites. The upper line is the adjusted result that the public gets to see. The scientists from the University of Colorado in charge of this project are mendacious liars, as are all the rest of the global warming scientists.

    There are plenty of tide gauges around the planet that show what has really been happening. The graph above is of the tide gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour, from 1914. Most of the sea level rise of the last century, as measured at Sydney Harbour, happened in the late 1940s. It has been effectively flat since. You can make a trend from that data and the trend is 2 inches per century. And that is likely to turn around and reverse soon.

    When all else fails the global warmers claim that increased carbon dioxide will make the seas acid and dissolve the shells off all the little sea creatures. The seas will never become acid. Theoretically they may become slightly less alkaline. In fact sea life will become more prolific with the increased carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.

    Even extreme amounts of carbon dioxide doesn’t do any harm to sea creatures. The photo above is of coral growing over an area of volcanic vents that are producing streams of carbon dioxide bubbles. The corals are healthy and there are fish happily swimming around. As with the situation above the sea surface, increased carbon dioxide levels in the oceans are wholly beneficial.

    Climate is not a random walk. If you can predict solar activity then you can predict climate. There have been a number of attempts at this but the quality is variable. One of the better ways of doing this is to pick out the cycles in long data series and then extrapolate them out. The graph above is the result from a Finnish tree ring study – a narrower annual ring means a colder year. Now the graph is quite interesting because it is predicting a big drop in temperature from 2025 to 2040 and then those cold temperatures will prevail until 2060. The drop in temperature predicted will be the larger than any in the last 500 years. If this does happen then many people will starve.

    Similarly, the graph above projects solar activity for the next five hundred years. Our solar records from ice cores are thousands of years long so such long term prediction can be credible. What these solar scientists are predicting is a return on 19th century levels of solar activity. That is not an outrageous prediction — and it will be cooler.

    The growing season in the US lengthened in the second half of the 20th century as climatic bands moved north. What goes up can come down. The last time there was a global cooling scare was in the 1970s, due to a weak Solar Cycle 20. The map above is from research done at the time on what would happen to the Corn Belt. It moves 144 kilometres with each 1°C change in temperature. Grain production would fall. Firstly from there being less heat to grow the crop but also because the Corn Belt is currently on perfectly flat ground produced by successive ice sheets with good soil while the area to the south has poorer soils that need a lot more fertilizer.

    The Corn Belt shifting has happened before in the US and will keep shifting until the end of time. The map above shows the northern limit of corn growing in the Great Lakes region by Indians in the Medieval Warm period and during the Sporer Minimum that ended in 1550. The latter was more than 300 kilometers south of where it was a couple of hundred years earlier.

    If the world was cooling as the level of solar activity says it should, then we should be seeing that in the weather we are experiencing on a day to day basis. And so we are. The slide above shows some newspaper headlines from early 2018 talking about record cold. And a year later the same sort of headlines also talking about new cold records. So the world is getting colder. The significance of the headline about the heaviest snow for 100 years means that the alpine glaciers will be accumulating mass and start advancing again.

    The closest historic parallel to what Australia is doing to
    itself is the 1856 cattle-killing frenzy of the Xhosa tribe in what
    is now South Africa.

    A teenage girl named Nongqawuse and her friend Nombanda
    went to fetch water.
    Upon returning, she said that they had met the spirits of three of her ancestors who had told her that the Xhosa people should destroy their crops and kill their cattle.
    In return the spirits would sweep the British settlers into the sea. Then their granaries would fill again and their kraals would have more and better cattle.
    The cattle-killing frenzy that followed killed between 300,000 and 400,000 head of cattle.
    In the resulting famine, the population of the province dropped from 105,000 to fewer than 27,000.

    We are often amused by the antics of simple-minded primitive peoples who don’t understand how things work. One of the more amusing cults of our time is the cargo cult in New Guinea, in which natives constructed fake airfields and planes in order to attract real planes to land and disgorge cargo. That particular belief is harmless enough. But from time to time primitive peoples can be gripped by messianic visions that do a lot of harm, to the extent of wiping our their tribes. One of the best documented of this kind of destructive cults was the cattle killing frenzy of the Xhosa tribe in 1856 in South Africa. Most of the tribe starved to death and some resorted to cannibalism.

    We can laugh or weep at such mindless stupidity but we are no different today. In their fits of religious ecstasy, the Labor governments in South Australia and Victoria destroyed coal-fired power stations before their time was up. At the moment the worst results of those religious paroxysms are that people are being impoverished by their power bills, there have been job losses, and the bitter harvest of dead grannies each winter due to lack of heating. But the threat is far greater than that. If we weaken ourselves economically through high power prices then we are less able to withstand economic shocks and external threats. The Xhosa were almost wiped out by a similar vision in the 19th century. We are headed down a similar path.

    Conclusions on Climate:

    Yes the world has warmed and this was mostly due to the
    highest level of solar activity for 10,000 years. Most likely outcome is that we return to the climate of the 19th century.
    Carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas and its effect from here is minuscule.
    The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere got dangerously low during the last ice age and the higher we can take it, the safer the world will be.
    There is no scientific reason to switch away from coal and other fossil fuels.
    Anyone who believes in global warming is either evil or stupid.

    Before we go on to discuss what we should be doing instead of worshiping global warming and building wind turbines and solar panels as temples to that false god, let’s sum up what we know now. The world is now getting colder not warmer, carbon dioxide is wholly good and not evil, and there is no scientific reason to not burn our endowment of coal. The situation is a bit more complicated than that though. Fossil fuels aren’t going to last forever and in the meantime we should conserve to convert and prepare for the world that comes after fossil fuels.

    Another thing we can say is that people who believe in global warming are either evil or stupid. They are quite happily destroying our standard of living on the flimsiest of notions, on a notion no better than witchcraft or spirit worship.

    Who are remorseless killers of our little old ladies who can’t heat their homes in winter?

    It all started with John Winston Howard:

    In the 1960s young Winston travelled across Sydney to sit at the knee of Sir Phillip Baxter, who told him of the wonders of nuclear power. Howard became a one man sleeper cell of nuclear advocacy.
    As Prime Minister, Howard knows Australians won’t vote for nuclear so he decides to force it on us by upping the cost of coal-based power via a carbon tax.
    Howard’s last dark deed was the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act of October 2007. This is the auditing basis of the carbon tax.
    Gillard promises no carbon tax in the 2010 election but reneges.
    Abbott wins the 2013 election on the promise of repealing the carbon tax, but three days after the election announces that the auditing basis of the tax won’t be repealed.
    So the carbon tax has come back in another form, and renewables legislation is killing the economy and little old ladies.

    Who will rid us of the menace of global warming hysteria?

    All the institutions that should have kept us safe from the global warmers have abrogated their responsibility. The universities, the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Institute of Engineers and others have actively conspired against the Australian public and nation. Others might have had good intentions in their own mind but ended up just being more useful fools for the Marxist plotters.

    Chief among these is John Howard. He wanted Australia to start building nuclear power plants, but knew that Australians wouldn’t vote for that. So the second rate Machiavelli decided to force that outcome by making coal-fired power generation more expensive. His last dark deed in government was the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act of October 2007. That act is the auditing basis of the carbon tax. Howard’s plan was to get the auditing system bedded down and then start taxing. In private Howard was known to be scathing of global warming as a big fraud. But he proceeded to bring in a carbon tax anyway.

    The global warming monster should have been killed in its crib. Howard could have and should have done that by commissioning a report saying it was nonsense. He decided to be a smart-arse instead. As in all science fiction stories, the global warming monster has grown up to turn on its creators.

    Of course, Labor are fully on board with the carbon tax because it is the chosen path to Marxist wealth redistribution on a planetary scale, on-world government, and so on. No surprise there, and we expect nothing less of them than selling the country down the river.

    Abbott won the 2013 election on a promise to end the carbon tax but the simpleton announced three days after that election that he wasn’t going to repeal the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. Why stop the tax and keep its auditing system? That’s just stupid. And so of course the carbon tax just shape-shifted and we still have it, suppressing economic activity.

    If the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act is repealed then the whole rotten house of cards comes tumbling down.

    So what are the consequences in detail of distorting our power supply, to worship the false god of global warming? This graph is from a presentation by the Chief Financial Officer of the den of the self-interested known as AGL. It is all about gaming the system to maximize the extortion of the power consumer.

    We see on the left hand side of the graph that black and brown coal are the cheapest sources of power. Wind, solar and natural gas are all much the same and three to four times the cost of coal-sourced power. AGL’s problem, as Mr Redman explained in his presentation, was that there was no need for new renewables to be built because the existing, much cheaper power plants were going to last a long time. The solution was to kill off existing plants before they were worn out.

    This graph shows how our power prices started rising a decade ago, soon after Rudd gained office, as those expensive windmills etc. were legislated into the power grid. We are paying two to three times what the price would be if we had just let nature take its course.

    This graph shows the share of the power supply by source from 1990. In the good old days it was mostly coal. Then the messianic hatred of carbon dioxide took off from early last decade and the natural gas share rose. That is a terrible waste of something you can use to power cars. It is also priced like oil in terms of energy content, so burning natural gas is just as stupid as burning oil for our power generation.

    But the price of power didn’t start rising dramatically until the renewables burden took off in a big way from 10 years ago.

    It gets worse. The slide above shows the title of a policy document on taking the carbon atom out of the methane molecules in our natural gas supply, throwing away most of the energy in the process. These people are so divorced from reality that they would entertain such a notion. Some might try to excuse it as virtue signalling. but it is also extremely stupid. The people who commissioned that document are in charge of a big chunk of the economy, while being as stupid as cargo cult believers.

    As this graph shows, as the coal share of power generation went down (blue line) then the cost of power went up a lot (orange line). The detail behind that is shown in the next graph:

    Wind and solar require enormous subsidies –- in effect transferring money from poor people paying their power bills to people who own wind farms, rooftop solar, and photovoltaic farms. This is wrong and should be stopped.



    The pain and stupidity are planned to get just worse and worse. This graph shows the planned closures of coal-fired generation out to 2030. If the power shortfall that causes is to be replaced by whirligigs then power is going to become very expensive indeed.

    AGL have told us in detail how they are going to exploit the spiky, unreliable power grid they had a hand in creating. The wind blows and stops in fits and spurts, creating sudden shortfalls in supply. To take advantage of that, they have installed banks of diesel generator sets that can be booted up to full power in under ten minutes. This is faster than gas turbines. As the graph says, it is all about capturing high prices — the high prices that they are a part of creating.

    Relying upon diesel generator sets for your power supply is something the third world does. So we are going completely third world in terms of power price, supply reliability and how it is generated. It need not be like this. The stupidity can be stopped. Things can be set to right.

    This graph shows the AEMO data dashboard for the east coast power market, as at five minutes to six pm on 24th January, 2019. This data is updated every five minutes. The states that blew up coal-fired power stations in fits of religious ecstasy were paying about 100 times the cost for spot power, compared to the states that hadn’t fully started down that path. This is just the beginning. There is a whole lot more stupidity planned. How bad it might get is shown by the following slide.

    The cost of power in Europe is directly proportional to the amount of wind and solar power in the grid. Labor wants to take our power grid to 50% renewables by 2030. They are quite happy to destroy the economy in the process. The Liberals are almost as bad of course. With either set of loonies in charge, the country will go backwards at a great rate.

    Conclusions on Power Prices

    Closing coal-fired power stations and tilting the competitive
    playing field away from coal is increasing costs for no benefit.
    Australia is throwing away its big competitive advantage for no benefit.
    Increasing costs unnecessarily destroys jobs.
    What is the point of exporting coal and not using it ourselves?
    The sooner this global-warming based idiocy is stopped, the sooner we will be safer, more secure and have a rising standard of living.
    Don’t tinker at the margins, just reverse all the stupidity of the last 20 years.

    to see it all:

    https://wentworthreport.com/stop-the-climate-stupidity/

  31. Link to Post #17
    Canada Avalon Member Fellow Aspirant's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th July 2011
    Location
    Kingston, Ontario
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,043
    Thanks
    6,002
    Thanked 5,262 times in 940 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    Not surprisingly, those who work in the arena of climate science have a markedly different take on global warming. And when you pay attention to this group, the ones who are actually doing the science, they are CLEAR: global warming is real.

    Here's a recent piece from The Guardian in which the author has a look at the track record of several climate deniers who claim that they have scientific proof that backs up their denialism. Their predictions are wrong.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tions-stack-up

    One of the deniers who is debunked is David Archibald. I've emboldened his section.

    When the global temperature readings are in for 2017, it’s going to be a very hard sell for climate-science deniers: 2017 will likely be ranked either side of 2015 as the second or third hottest year on record, with 2016 still in top spot.

    The hottest five-year period recorded in the modern era will be the one we’ve just had.

    Communities around the world, and the flora and fauna we share it with, feel the effects of that steady rise through extreme weather, droughts, heatwaves, shifting rains, melting ice and rising sea levels.

    Levels of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, deforestation and land clearing keep climbing.
    Australia's greenhouse gas emissions highest on record.

    But some remain convinced that the whole thing is an elaborate hoax and readily find a home for their conspiracy theories and pseudoscience in conservative media outlets and, too often, on publicly funded ones too.

    Climate-science deniers love to fling around accusations that climate change models are massively over-egging the global warming pudding and should not be trusted (climate scientist Zeke Hausfather has a great technical explainer on this).

    While many pseudo-sceptics are quick with an unfounded criticism, it’s rare for them to put their own alchemy to the test by making firm projections about what’s to come.

    But sometimes they do and the results are often spectacularly and comically bad. Let’s have a look at a few.
    The $10,000 bet

    In 2005, two Russian solar physicists, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, accepted a $10,000 bet with the British climate modeller James Annan that will be concluded in a couple of weeks.

    At the time, Annan had been looking around for sceptics willing to put money behind their predictive prowess.

    He bet the two Russians $10,000 that the six years between 2012 and 2017 would be warmer than the six years between 1998 and 2003.

    Temperature data from the US National Climatic Data Centre – since renamed the National Centres for Environmental Information – would be used.

    Annan thought human-caused global warming would keep pushing temperatures higher. The Russian pair thought solar activity would drop away and this effect would be enough to cause global temperatures to fall.
    Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories
    Read more

    With only one month of data to go, you don’t need a maths degree to see who is rubbing their hands.

    So far, only two years between 1998 and 2003 rank in the top 10 warmest years, compared with at least five years between 2012 and 2017.

    Annan told me: “Yes I am confident of winning the bet, even the threatened eruption of Agung couldn’t matter … even if it had happened earlier this year. With only a few weeks to go, there is no chance of sufficient cooling for me to lose.”
    El Niño enough?

    In 2011, a group of Australian and New Zealand “sceptics” predicted that temperatures were about to plummet. The year 2011, they said, would likely be “the coolest year globally since 1956 or even earlier”.

    Largely ignoring the role of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, the group, led by Australian John McLean, thought instead that the cycle of warming El Niño and cooling La Niña weather patterns would be enough to explain what would happen that year. This natural cycle had entered its cooler phase in late 2010.

    You might have guessed it, but the group was wildly wrong.
    Global temperature chart from 2011 showing the failed prediction of a group of climate science deniers
    Global temperature chart from 2011 showing the failed prediction of a group of climate science deniers Composite: Graham Readfearn/NOAA

    For the globe to be as cool as 1956, the temperatures would have to have been about 0.15C below the 20th century average. Instead, they were about 0.5C above the 20th century average.

    According to data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011 tied as the 11th warmest year on record. At the time, 2011 ranked as the warmest La Niña year on record.
    What about Newsweek?

    In April 1975, Newsweek magazine ran a story highlighting how some scientists thought the world was heading for global cooling.

    Climate science deniers love to cite that Newsweek story to claim there was a consensus among scientists in the 1970s that the world was heading for global cooling. They cited it so often, it became Newsweek’s most popular ever.

    The dodgy logic goes like this. Because scientists were wrong then about future temperatures, they might be wrong now about projections of further warming.

    Don’t think too hard about the internal inconsistency of the argument where they use some flawed predictions from the 70s to try and disprove the global warming we’re actually experiencing, but that they will also say isn’t happening.

    The real story is this. Some scientific studies in the 1970s did suggest the world was going to cool. But even back then, analysis has shown that for every study predicting cooling there were six studies predicting warming.
    Plimer minus £1,000

    In 2008, Prof Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist and mining industry figure, accepted a bet from a British climate policy expert and economic modeller, Dr Chris Hope.

    Hope had been at a conference in Cambridge where, he later wrote, “most of the participants were sceptical about the influence of humans on the climate”.

    Hope took the microphone and offered a £1,000 bet that 2015 would be hotter than 2008. Plimer, who thinks climate change is all natural and nothing to do with humans, accepted the bet.

    Oops. According to the UK’s MetOffice, 2015 turned out to be the hottest year on record. In fact, every year from 2009 to 2015 was hotter than 2008.

    Plimer continues to be invited on to conservative media outlets to speak as an “expert” on climate change, while publishing books disparaging climate science and renewable energy and serving on the boards of several mining companies, including those owned by Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart.

    Plimer gave an interview to the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation a few weeks ago, shortly after the former Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, had given that group’s annual lecture.

    In October on Sky News, Plimer told the News Corp political commentator and fellow climate science denier Andrew Bolt that human-caused climate change was a “fallacy based on fraud promoted by fools”.

    As in 2008, Plimer continues to be wrong.

    Archibald prize?

    In 2006 and 2007, the Perth-based geologist David Archibald made several predictions about the coming years and decades. It was going to be cool, cool, cool.

    “The sun drives climate change and it will be colder next decade by 2C,” wrote Archibald.


    He dismissed the role of extra CO2 in driving temperatures (big mistake) and instead plumped for solar cycles as the key driver of global temperatures. He predicted that years would get progressively cooler heading out to 2030.

    According to Archibald, this would see temperatures peaking in 1998, with temperatures bottoming out around the year 2025 to levels not seen since at least the late 19th century.


    What happened? When Archibald made his “prediction”, 1998 was the hottest year on record and he thought it would stay that way until at least 2030.

    Now, 1998 has dropped all the way down to eighth warmest, according to the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Archibald last made headlines in early 2017, when the geologist was running for the far-right One Nation party in Australia’s federal election, and called single mothers “ugly” and “lazy”.


    Cooling Any Minute

    Don Easterbrook is a geology professor at Western Washington University who has been making predictions of imminent global cooling for the best part of two decades.

    Easterbrook, a regular at climate science denial meetings run by the Heartland Institute, rejects the role of increasing CO2 and thinks that all you need for predicting future climates is to look at natural cycles of the past.

    So in 2001 Easterbrook thought: “If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end in the next few years, and global warming should abate, rather than increase, in the coming decades.”

    So it was any minute now for cooling. In 2006 Easterbrook said: “The current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool.”

    In 2008 he wrote that his “predicted cooling seems to have already begun”.

    That year he also wrote: “In a nutshell, in 2001 I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus three to five years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data ... If the present cooling trend continues, the [United Nations climate change] reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science.”

    So, what happened?

    According to NOAA, the following year, 2009, was the fifth warmest year on record, 2010 tied for the warmest, then 2011 and 2012 were relatively cool at the 11th and 10th warmest years. When the data was in for 2013, it was the fourth warmest year. The years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were all progressively ranked warmest on record.

    That global cooling is just round the corner though. Any minute now.
    Rapid cooling

    Kevin Long is an Australian mechanical engineer and one of those “long-range” weather forecasters who pull together things like moon cycles and sun spot activity to make predictions.

    In January 2014, Long declared the world was heading for “the most rapid global cooling trend for two centuries” and that during 2016 this event “should become very obvious to all”.
    Environmental crusaders risk their lives to save Philippine paradise
    Read more

    Long said it was “unlikely” the public would be told about the coming global cooling, because of all the “anthropogenic global warming propaganda” that the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change was endlessly “peddling”, backed by an “extremely biased world media”.

    So how’s that rapid global cooling trend going? We sort of know already, but 2017 is likely to be the second or third warmest year on record.

    Climate fail army

    Fellow Guardian environmental blogger Dana Nuccitelli wrote a whole book about the predictive qualities of this failed army of “sceptics”, called Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics.

    Apart from being wrong, all these failed predictions have one thing in common: they all reject the role that human emissions of carbon dioxide are having on global temperatures.

    The natural cycles used by many to make predictions, such as El Niño or the Pacific decadal oscillation or the activity of the sun, are well known and well studied.

    But as the failed predictions show, those natural cycles have lost their grip on the world’s temperature. Carbon dioxide is increasingly in charge.

    So allow me to make a couple of predictions.

    First, based on their record, climate-science deniers will keep telling you that global cooling is just around the corner or that all that extra CO2 will be just great anyway.

    Second, many will look to the comments section to yell that climate models are broken and global temperature records are being nefariously tampered with.

    In short, the climate fail army will descend.

    [/COLOR]https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tions-stack-up


    To sum up, then: if one is going to claim a scientific basis for one's beliefs, one should use actual science.

    Regards,

    Brian
    Last edited by Fellow Aspirant; 3rd February 2020 at 18:33.
    A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.

    Albert E.

  32. Link to Post #18
    United States Avalon Member Whisper's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th December 2018
    Location
    Terra
    Language
    English
    Age
    59
    Posts
    687
    Thanks
    562
    Thanked 2,107 times in 553 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    There is no global warming and Climate changes been always on Terra. It is a word game...nothing else. First they did call it global warming. When it did leak out...it is not true..they quickly changed it in climate changing. Planet earth always had climate changings....which is natural. Look in the history charts.

    The climate and nature reacts to everything....mainly to the activity of the sun......We are heading into another small ice age and not the opposite...

    1 hr. documentation

    very interesting informations here.....
    Last edited by Whisper; 3rd February 2020 at 19:01.

  33. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Whisper For This Post:

    Alan (19th February 2020), Ba-ba-Ra (20th February 2020), Satori (3rd February 2020)

  34. Link to Post #19
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,052
    Thanks
    28,580
    Thanked 52,624 times in 10,589 posts

    Default Re: Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

    MASS Indoctrination Climate Change FEAR | CORRUPTION of Science 2020
    Feb 18, 2020


    Reviewed by Alexandra Bruce: https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/cli...-science-2020/

    "As Dr. Tim Ball, a retired professor from the University of Winnepeg says here, this corruption has been premeditated, "And just like with murders, murders of passion are one thing but premeditated murders are a completely different situation."

    Dr. Richard Lindzen, an Atmospheric Physicist at MIT says of this corruption, "Science, itself has become sort of a slight irrelevance, that stories have been promoted over the last 25-30 years and they have completely redirected the science. But more to the point, they've also followed Eisenhower's warning that fundamentally, as the state monopolizes the support of science. It calls the shots.

    "So you have the scientists on the one hand, on both sides presenting, I would say, not particularly alarming scenarios but then you have the body politic presenting something that does not, by and large have the support of science, about the end of the planet...

    "What is the cost of the politicization of science? Well, it's many things...I don't think any field survives this degree of corruption without losing, if nothing else it's self-respect. But in terms of climate science, I think it set back the field probably a few generations.

    "I mean, it forced it into a channel that was not describing most of past climate change and so, instead of trying to figure out how the Earth behaved, the field was co-opted into a situation where it was supposed to support a paradigm that the government wanted or that the environmental movement wanted." "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  35. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (20th February 2020), T Smith (19th February 2020)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts