273

Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide and the Solar Minimum

Renee Parsons

Since Climate Change (CC) has been a constant of life on Gaia with the evolution of photosynthesis 3.2 billion years ago and has more complexities than this one essay can address; ergo, this article will explore co2’s historic contribution to global warming (GW) as well as explore the relationship of Solar Minimum(SM) to Earth’s climate.

Even before the UN-initiated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed in 1988, the common assumption was that carbon dioxide was thekey greenhouse gas and that its increases were the driving force solely responsible for rising climate temperatures. 

At that time, anthropogenic (human caused) GW was declared to be the existential crisis of our time, that the science was settled and that we, as a civilization, were running out of time.

And yet, in the intervening years, uncertainty remained about GW’s real time impacts which may be rooted in the fact that many of IPCC’sessential climate forecasts of consequence have not materializedas predicted.  Even as the staid Economist magazine recently noted:

Over the past fifteen years, air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar.”

Before the IPCC formed, NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii registered co2 levelsat under 350 ppm (parts per million) with the explicit warning that if co2 exceeded that number, Mother Earth was in Big Trouble – and there would be no turning back for humanity.  Those alarm bells continue today as co2 levels have risen to 414 ppm as temperatures peaked in 1998.

From the outset, the IPCC controlled the debate by limiting its charter

to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

In other words, before any of the science had been done, the IPCC’s assumption was that man-made activity was responsible and that Nature was not an active participant in a process within its own sphere of interest. As an interdisciplinary topic of multiple diversity, the IPCC is not an authority on all the disciplines of science within the CC domain.

While there is no dispute among scientists that the Sun and its cyclical output is the true external force driving Earth’s energy and climate system as part of a Sun-centered Universe, the IPCC’s exclusion of the Sun from its consideration can only be seen as a deliberate thwarting of a basic fundamental law of  science, a process which assures a free inquiry based on reason and evidence.

It is the Sun which all planets of the solar system orbit around, that has the strongest gravitational pull in the solar system, is the heaviest of all celestial bodies and its sunspots in relation to Earth’s temperatures has been known since Galileo began drawing sunspots in 1613.

Yet the IPCC which touts a ‘scientific view of climate change’would have us believe the Sun is irrelevant and immaterial to the IPCC’s world view and Earth’s climate; hardly a blip on their radar.

In the GW debate, co2 is dismissed as a colorless, odorless pollutant that gets little credit as a critical component for its contribution to life on the planet as photosynthesis does not happen without co2.  A constant presence in Earth’s atmosphere since the production of oxygen, all living organisms depend on co2 for its existence. 

As a net contributor to agriculture, plants absorb co2 as they release oxygen into the atmosphere that we two- and four-leggeds depend on for sustenance and oxygen as necessities for survival on Earth. 

There are scientists who believe that Earth has been in a co2 ‘famine’ while others applaud Earth’s higher co2 levels in the last three decades as a regreening of the planet.

While An Inconvenient Truth (2006) and An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2016) stage managed the climate question as a thoroughly politicized ‘settled science’ with former veep Al Gore declaring the drama a ‘moral’ issue, there is no room for any preference that does not depend on a rigorous, skeptical, independent investigation based on evidentiary facts rather than the partisan politics of emotion and subjective opinion.

Given the prevalence of weather in our daily lives, it would seem elementary for engaged citizens and budding paleoclimatologists to understand Earth’s ancient climate history and atmospherein order to gain an informed perspective on Earth’s current and future climate.

As a complicated non-linearsystem, climate is a variable composition of rhythmic spontaneity with erratic and even chaotic fluctuations making weather predictions near-impossible.  

Climate is an average of weather systems over an established long term period while individual weather events indicative of a short term trend are not accurate forecasts of CC.  While ice core readings provide information, they do not show causation of GW but only measure the ratio between co2 and rising temperatures. It is up to scientists to interpret the results.  And that’s where this narrative takes, like ancient weather and climate patterns, an unpredictable turn.

It might be called an inconvenient truth that ‘skeptic’ scientists have known for the last twenty years that the Vostok ice core samples refute co2’s role as a negative and even question its contribution as the major greenhouse gas.  

It is no secret to many climate professionals that water vapor with co2 at 3.6%.

Located at the center of the Antarctica ice sheet, the Vostok Research Center is a collaborative effort where Russian and French scientists collected undisturbed ice core data in the 1990s to measure the historic presence of carbon dioxide levels. 

The Vostoksamples provided the first irrefutable evidence of Earth’s climate history for 420,000 year including the existence of four previous glacial and interglacial periods. 

Those samples ultimately challenged the earlier premise of co2’s predominant role and that carbon dioxide was not the climate culprit once thought.  It is fair to add that IPCC related scientists believe Vostok to be ‘outliers’ in the GW debate.

The single most significant revelation of the ice core studies has been that GW could not be solely attributed to co2 since carbon dioxide increases occurred aftertemperature increases and that an extensive ‘lag’ time exists between the two.

Logic and clear thinking demands that cause (co2) precedes the effect (increased temps) is in direct contradiction to the assertion that carbon dioxide has been responsible for pushing higher global temperatures.  Just as today’s 414 ppm precedes current temps which remain within the range of normal variability.

Numerouspeer-reviewedstudies confirmed that co2 lags behind temperature increases, originally by as much as 800 years

That figure was later increased to 8,000 years and by 2017 the lag time between co2 and temperature had been identified as 14,000 years.   As if a puzzlement from the Quantum world, it is accepted that CO2 and temperatures are correlated as they rise and fall together, yet are separated by a lag time of thousands of years.

What is obscure from public awareness in the GW shuffle is that geologic records have identified CC as a naturally occurring cyclewith glacial periods of 100,000 year intervals that are interrupted by brief, warming interglacial periods lasting 15,000-20,000 years.

Those interglacial periods act as a temperate respite from what is the world’s natural normal Ice Age environment.  Within those glacial and interglacial periods are cyclical subsets of global cooling and warming just as today’s interglacial warm period began at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age about 12,000 years ago.   Since climate is not a constant, check these recent examples of Earth’s climate subsets:

200 BC – 600 AD: Roman warming cycle

440 AD – 950 AD: Dark Ages cool cycle

950 AD – 1300 AD: Medieval warming cycle

1300 AD – 1850 AD: Renaissance Little Ice Age

1850 – Present: Modern warming cycle

In addition, climate records have shown that peak co2 temperatures from the past are relative to today’s co2 level without the addition of a fossil fuelcontribution.  For instance, just as today’s measurement at 414 ppm contains a ‘base’ co2 level of approximately 300 ppm as recorded in the 19th century, any co2 accumulation over 300 ppm would be considered anthropogenic (man-made) and be portrayed as “historic” or ‘alarmingly high’ and yet remain statistically insignificant compared to historic co2 norms.

During the last 600 million years, only the Carboniferous period and today’s Holocene Epoch each witnessed co2 levels at less than 400 ppm.

During the Early Carboniferous Period, co2 was at 1500 ppm with average temperatures comparable to 20 C; 68 F before diving to 350 ppm during the Mid Carboniferous period with a reduced temperature of 12 C;54F. In other words, current man-made contributions to co2 are less than what has been determined to be significant.

Contrary to the IPCC’s stated goal, NASA recognizes that “All weather on Earth, from the surface of the planet into space, begins with the Sun” and that weather experienced on Earth’s surface is “influenced by the small changes the Sun undergoes during its solar cycle.”

A Solar Minimum(SM) is a periodic 11 year solar cycle normally manifesting a weak magnetic field with increased radiation and cosmic rays while exhibiting decreased sunspot activity that, in turn, decreases planetary temperatures.

Today’s solar cycle is referred to as the Grand Minimum which, according to NOAA, predicts reductions from the typical 140 – 220 sunspots per solar cycle to 95 – 130 sunspots.

As the Sun is entering “one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” a NASA scientist predicted a SM that could ”set a Space Age record for cold” but has recently clarified his statement as it applies only to the Thermosphere.

In October 2018, NOAA predicted “Winter Outlook favors Warmer Temperaturefor much of the US,” as above-normal precipitation and record freezing temperatures were experienced throughout the country.

As of this writing, with the Sun noticeably intense, Earth has experienced 22 consecutive dayswithout sunspots for a 2019 total of 95 spotless days at 59%. 

In 2018, 221 days were spotless at 61%. Spaceweather.com monitors sunspot (in)activity.

With the usual IPCC and Non-IPCCsplit, the SM is expected to be at its lowest by 2020 with a peak between 2023 and 2026 as it exhibits counterintuitive erratic weather anomalies including cooler temps due to increased cloud cover, higher temps due to solar sunspot-free brilliance, potential electrical events,  heavy rain and flooding and drought, a shorter growing season, impacts on agriculture and food production systems or it may all be a walk in the park with shirt sleeves in January.

While there is clearly an important climate shift occurring even as the role of co2 and human activity as responsible entities remains problematic, the elimination of co2 and its methane sidekick would be exceedingly beneficial for a healthy planet.  It is time to allow scientists to be scientists without political agendas or bureaucratic interference as the Sun and Mother Earth continue in their orbit as they have for eons of millennia.

As Earth’s evolutionary climate cycles observe the Universal law of the natural world, the Zero Point Field, which produces an inexhaustible source of ‘free’ energy that Nikola Tesla spoke of, is the means by which inter stellar vehicles travel through time/space.  The challenge for ingenious, motivated Earthlings is to harness and extract the ZPF proclaiming a new planetary age of technological innovation with no rapacious industry, no pollution, no shortages, no gas guzzlers and no war.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Antonym
Antonym

Good, but lets not eliminate all CO2 as all plants depend on it.

Additionally statistics is not a strong side of most climate scientists as they made a fundamental mistake in their temperature projections: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

Next satellite observations over 37 recent years have shown that while the Arctic warms, the Antarctic doesn’t: CO2 either warms both poles or non but not just one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425716302218

Brad
Brad

“IPCC’sessential climate forecasts of consequence have not materializedas predicted.”
– they have. Its only if you cherry pick the start and end dates so the start is an extreme high and the end date is at an extreme low that it appears flat

“Even as the staid Economist magazine recently noted:”
– the quoted ‘recent’ article was 2013. The hottest 5 years on record have all been since then

“Those alarm bells continue today as co2 levels have risen to 414 ppm as temperatures peaked in 1998.”
– as above, temperatures did not peak in 1998

“the IPCC which touts a ‘scientific view of climate change’would have us believe the Sun is irrelevant and immaterial to the IPCC’s world view and Earth’s climate;”
– Its not considered irrelevant, its just much smaller – ‘Over the past century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change,’
As global temperature increases accelerate the relevance of this component will continue to shrink.

“gets little credit as a critical component for its contribution to life ”
– Oh FFS. Everyone knows and recognises CO2 is essential for plant growth.

“There are scientists who believe that Earth has been in a co2 ‘famine’ ”
– Who??

“It is no secret to many climate professionals that water vapor with co2 at 3.6%.”
– this doesnt make sense

“since carbon dioxide increases occurred aftertemperature increases”
– yes, CO2 concentration can increase as a result of temperature rises, and ALSO it can cause temperature rises. Thats what make it a feedback loop.
And it should be no surprise that human induced climate change did not occur before humans.

“geologic records have identified CC as a naturally occurring cyclewith glacial periods of 100,000 year intervals that are interrupted by brief, warming interglacial periods”
– yes, we live in a geological period called the Quaternary which is an ice age. We are currently in an interglacial period which has been occuring about every 100,000 years, and typically lasts for less then 10k years. We were already at the the typical peak temperature of that interglacial, and now we’re seeing an incredibly abrupt increase in temperatures which breaks the trend

I could go on, but honestly whats the point..

Omen Necrofis
Omen Necrofis

Just to share…

Human CO 2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO 2 – International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences ( Published at 4 June 2019).

Omen Necrofis
Omen Necrofis

I’m geologist and i’m totally agree that anything happen on earth is naturally… not caused by human

Omen Necrofis
Omen Necrofis

Just to Share..

Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2 – International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (4 June 2019).

Max King
Max King

n the simplest possible terms, naturally occurring climate changes and CO2 levels have not been correlated – i.e. naturally occurring climate changes were not caused by the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The situation now is that man-made emissions of CO2, methane and other gases are accumulating above natural levels in the Earth’s atmosphere. As a consequence, these gases will cause a retention of heat (like the glass in a greenhouse) and the Earth will become warme

Richard Greene

Max King
Your July 5 1:48pm comment is wrong in so many ways, it’s hard to begin an analysis !

There is no such thing as a “natural level” of greenhouse gases.

CO2, for one example, has ranged from about 200 ppm, to at least 4,000 ppm.

No one knows what CO2 level is normal, and given the huge natural range, adding another 100 or 200 ppm of man made CO2 is a small change.

The claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some amount of warming is an assumption, based on closed system, water vapor free, infrared spectroscopy experiments, done in laboratories.

The actual effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is unknown.

The large addition of man made CO2 from 1940 through 2018 was accompanied by an increase in the average temperature of about +0.6 degrees C., which is a warming rate of less than +0.8 degrees C. per century.

No one knows what caused that 1940 through 2018 warming — it could have been 100% natural, or 100% CO2, or some combination of natural and man made causes.

Everyone should know that +0.8 degrees C. warming in a century is harmless, ESPECIALLY because the warming since 1975 was mainly in higher (colder) latitudes, mainly in the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night. Warmer winter nights in Alaska are NOT a climate crisis !

My climate science blog,
for more information:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Max King
Max King

The natural levels of atmospheric CO2 are those that are maintained by the natural carbon cycle.

As with the rest of your so-called analysis, your statement *CO2, for one example, has ranged from about 200 ppm, to at least 4,000 ppm* fully qualifies as fantasy.

Newport R.I. is one very, very, very tiny part of the globe.

Amateurs should refrain from trying to play with science and scientific data.

And “cherry-picking” comments from news media is very amateurish.

Richard Greene

Max King
Your comments are science free, data free, and logic free.

Newport, RI was mentioned in the New York Times as facing a disaster from climate change.

I published information on my blog to show that sea level rise and land subsidence has been a problem there for centuries, not a new problem related to man made CO2.

Although I typed the article slow, so slow people like you could understand, it apparently was way over your head.

You are obviously clueless about the history of our planet based on the work of geologists over several centuries.

They are real scientists working on real science.

Your lack of knowledge about past levels of CO2 is shocking.

Don’t you know that huge amounts of CO2 from the past atmosphere are
currently sequestered underground as coal, oil and natural gas?

Don’t you even realize that by burning those fuels, we are “recycling” sequestered CO2
back into the atmosphere, where it was a long time ago?

It appears you know very little about the history of our planet.

I guess you are more interested in wild guesses about the future of our planet?

Such as your beloved “computer game playing government bureaucrats with science degrees”, making wrong global average temperature predictions for over 30 years, using an obviously wrong theory from the 1970’s.

Wrong wild guess predictions of the future climate are not real science.

Merely having a science degree does not mean your work is real science.

That’s YOUR computer game inept team, Max, not mine — and it’s the shaky “house of cards” foundation of all YOUR coming climate change catastrophe fantasies !

midnight
midnight

What in the world does this “sentence” mean?:

It is no secret to many climate professionals that water vapor with co2 at 3.6%.

BigB
BigB

Reply to Mr “I love global warming” below.

This is why climate framing is so flawed: and a deliberate diminution of the Human Impact convergence of crises.

Claims were made that insect and species extinction are the result of “computer games”. Both the IUCN ‘Red List’ and recent comprehensive IPBES report were conclusively based on raw data. Human activities are harming species, ecosystems, and threatening biospheric integrity across the globe.

https://www.ipbes.net/

Also, “the last 150 of global warming have been the most prosperous”. This is the sort of bullshit Pinker and Lindzen come out with. It is not true. It is so not true even Monbiot refuted Pinker’s similar claims. Here is Jeremy Lent’s refutal.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-05-18/steven-pinkers-ideas-about-progress-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/

Those 150 years are also known as the ‘Petroleum Interval’. All ‘progress’ and ‘prosperity’ are intimately connected to burning fossil fuels. To some these may be the best on record; to most they were years of war, imperialism, and planetary desecration. But we don’t frame it like that in the imperial heartlands. We frame it as ‘prosperity’ and ‘progress’.

Well, it’s over. And it is not just a matter of opinion, but stone cold bedrock science. If you haven’t heard of EROI, it is a way of quantifying entropy. Specifically, it is a way of determining the amount of excess energy available for society, arts, welfare, healthcare and economic activity. And, due to depletion, it will always tend to trend down – exponentially.

Scroll down the page and you will find a link to the ‘net energy cliff’. I already placed the UK on there – on the edge of collapse. The rest of the world is not far behind. Recent research puts our master resource – oil – at 14:1. That’s on the edge of an exponential slide into collapse. Based on a scientifically sound 2nd Law derived statement.

Entropy is bad enough on its own, but we have amassed $244tn worth of debts. And that is what they are telling us about. Deutsche Bank alone has $43tn in derivatives exposure – bigger than the ECB or Germany’s ability to bail in or out. There is a similar black hole in Australia and China ($37tn ‘off-balance’ hidden debt). Those debts are increasing exponentially and are becoming unservicable. There is a ‘liquidity crisis’ – solution …more liquidity, more debt.

What that amounts to is the biggest asset transfer – from poor to already obscenely rich – in history, exaggerating wealth polarisation to levels of gross obscenity never seen before. That is what the last 150 years have really brought, planetary destruction and the rise of wealth monopolisation by a few. And when there is a crisis: that obscene wealth will be used to buy up tangible assets for fiat …putting us one step closer to being fully owned. Some progress?

Part of that ‘accumulation by dispossession’ wealth strategy – aks green neoliberalism – is to privatise ‘natural capital’ and financialise the environment. More debt, more entropy, more depletion, using nature as capital and collateral …do I have to spell out the entailments for humanity and nature. Ruin is forever.

To which the ‘climate debate’ – as a forum for the self-absorbed indulgence of cherished beliefs is a character mask – masking the real dynamics of civilisational atrophy. To those who say: “nothing to see here, the climate is fine”. The climate may well be fine: but in the broader debate no one wants – humanities activities are heavily negatively impacting everything else. To the brink of collapse.

Climate models have inbuilt economic models of exponential growth to 2100. Anyone can check the details of the scenario I have outlined – there is no way that this trajectory can be met. The economy will collapse long before then. Capital is already rendering itself meaningless. As is the ‘climate debate’.

What isn’t meaningless is the death, famine, and global misery that capital accumulation structurally and violently imposes globally. On humanity, on biodiversity, and on the biosphere. So, you had your debate: I have to ask – cui bono …humanity, biodiversity, or the corporatocracy?

Strategic doubt is their greatest weapon. What resolve or focus on the Human Impact crisis has been achieved? I came here to say that we need to reframe the debate to one that favours humanity. This world, that in the capitalist utopian view has never had it so good – is actually close to collapse. And humanity is wittingly, unwittingly, and in some cases, like mine, unwillingly …ceding control and letting the green neoliberal corporatocracy frame the consensus debate and unroll its long-term plans for humanity.

No one wants that: so we need a new dissensus debate and counter-hegemonic strategy by reframing the debate with humanism. I’m suggesting ‘entropy framing’ – because they cannot financialise that with fiat. Which can never happen by reductive focus on the climate. Whatever happens to the climate: we are still unsustainably disrupting everything else – including both ecology and economy …condemning our fellow humanity to permanent poverty so we can spout hot air.

leonardo

BigB,

We are told that John Von Neumann suggested Claude Shannon to use the word “entropy” in his theory on information – because, he said: no one understands entropy, and therefore you will always be at an advantage in an argument.

Apart from the word “entropy” you are not talking about climate. You are talking about a lot of problems we see in the world, and you want them all to be interwoven. To summarize in your own words: Humanities activities in this world, that in the capitalist utopian view has never had it so good, are heavily negatively impacting everything else. To the brink of collapse.

Well, the number of humans on this planet is quiet impressive – because we are so civilized that we do not cull and kill. And life is organized in a certain way – the quality of which is disputable.

To be clear: I’m an anti-alarmist. I’m an anti-alarmist, because no science in the world can tell us what’s happening with the climate. Climate-crisis is a hoax, and the consensus about climate-crisis is also a hoax.
There are two kind of alarmists. One, the climatologist who has made it his job to save the world because “his” science tells him that our world is collapsing. These men are dangerous.
But, there is a second group. People who believe that humans are a negative force on this planet, destroying everything. They believe of course in climate-crisis. But they believe in a lot of more crises. These are the worst, far more dangerous. They jumped on the bandwagon of the climate alarmist community, with malice aforethoughts.

Someone wrote of this group:

The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer, protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods and a dislike of the human race.

You can organize life in a lot of ways. Apart from political systems and economic systems, you have healthcare, food distribution, housing etc. etc. This leaves you with a muddle of interactions – with not the slightest idea when a specific interaction will jump up in the chain of consecutive interactions. Entropy of the highest level.

There is no right answer! So, if you think the world is that bad think twice, and … look before you leap.

btw: No model can tell you what you may expect to happen around 2100 AD. Neither are there models who tell you what will happen in 2050 … not even for 2025. What is more: climate models have not a single experiment, nor a well understood physical law to underpin the results.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend

BIGB! You assert there’s a climate agenda perpetrated by a “green neoliberal corporatocracy”, you can’t at the same time defend the veracity a UN organisation like IPBES!

In the past you have stated that:

The neoliberal climate agenda has been in gestation and development phase for decades….

and this agenda is…

manufacturing consent for their ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’; Information Age; the ‘Eurasian Information Infrastructure’ Eastern technocracy rising; the GND/CCC ‘climate economy’ …fronted by a transfixed 16 year old girl, VVP, Xi, Corbyn, Gates: etc.

You also say that…

The ‘debate’ is a narrative trap. It was weaponised and won before we even started to enter the public forum. They sponsored much of the research – including the Limits of Growth in the 70s.

How can you unquestioningly vouch for this clear front to your “neoliberal climate agenda”, whose tag line is “Science and Policy for People and Nature”!? ha!

You say in one post below:

One thing that pisses me off about the cyclical climate denialist tropes is that they really assume scientists are either corrupt or stupid …or both. And that any possible deviation – the urban heat island effect, for instance – hasn’t been accounted for, figured in, and corrected for. So the climate denialist pseudo-scientist take is somehow empirically superior.

Well, I wouldn’t hang my hat on the science either. But the alternative is disregard the precautionary principle and run the experiment live …

And in another post you say (my emphasis):

What virtually no one can get their head around is that the science is sound. The agenda generated from the science is nepharious. I respectfully submit that we will never win any debate centred on climate. The result was pre-determined nearly half a century ago.

You are clearly arguing both sides of the debate here! Coupled with your long, sprawling posts, one could easily view this as obstructing this debate – aka trolling!

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

BigB, what you have posted is so relevant and accurate, yet people here and elsewhere still hang on to their old political and warped belief systems.

What saddens me the most is that what should be empathetic people of the left are bizarrely cynical and tragically still fighting the old political battles between the left and right, every issue becomes politicised unnecessarily.

We need to understand, in order to survive as a species, that there are REAL problems, but also REAL solutions, and politics is really a diversion, in fact slows us down, dangerously so.

Richard Greene

Big B, you are clueless beyond belief on the subject of climate science.

You do, however, appear to know a lot about climate astrology.

You are trapped in a leftist computer game fantasy world where the future climate is claimed to be known with great confidence … while the past climate keeps changing due to repeated arbitrary data “adjustments.

The computer game predictions have been far from reality for over 30 years — of course you could not care less — ignore the wrong predictions and keep on predicting a climate crisis every year.

From 1940 through 2018, the rate of actual warming (less than +0.8 degrees C. pert century), has been completely ignored by the computer gamers, who are predicting QUADRUPLE that rate of warming (when excluding the Russian model, that seems accurate, from the average)

You are so foolish as to believe another computer game, that invents millions of new species out of thin air, then decides one million of them will die, has something to do with real science.

When asked for a list of the Latin names for the species predicted to die off — we are told “Never Mind That — We Have Science Degrees and We Know What We Are Talking About”

As I wrote in my article on the Extinction Delusion today, “Not one major land mammal
that went extinct in the last 10,000 years was due to climate change. It will be a miracle if the gradual change in climate causes any extinctions at all. Only illegal hunting and habitat destruction threaten endangered species”.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/one-million-species-extinction-is-proof.html

I’ll be honest with you BigB, I didn’t get beyond the first paragraph of you painfully long-winded, logic-free, data free reply. I’d rather spend my time trying to teach my cat differential equations

A brilliant, prolific MIT PhD Japanese climate scientist just published a new book that agrees with what I’ve been writing on my climate science blog for five years.

I wrote a short article about him today:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/climate-scientist-dr-mototaka-nakamuras.html

leonardo

No one has ever seen climate-change. No one does know what kind of phenomenons are going along with climate change, leave alone 99% of the so-called alarmists. Yet, an overwhelming lot of people do believe the world is endangered by man-made global warming.

No one has ever seen an apocalypse. But we know it is there, out in the dark.
We have the book of Revelations – the priests and ministers and rabbis telling us – and the paintings. And we have the film of Coppola.

Not to forget: we have the Fall, also brought to us by priests and rabbis and ministers. The Fall, which brings us our guilt in a mirror, in whatever and wherever it can mirror.
We have the Fall of Joyce, far better than the Fall in Genesis 3 – but we prefer the removal from paradise.
And, most important: we have the writing on the wall: mene mene tekel upharsin

Oh, by the way, it were the scientists who told us about the big bang: Could have been a different story – for instance the universe like an accordion, not uncommon among astrophysicists.
No one has ever seen a big bang.
But we believe in the big bang.

So, why should we stop believing the old sages, the priests and the new scientists. It’s our nature.
There was no universe. Then God came into being. And the big bang. And paradise. And the Fall. And we murdered the son of God. And we destroyed the earth. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Bill Price
Bill Price

Regarding Solar or Milankovitch cycles, the Ice Cores show longer Climate Cycles of 83,000y > , 90,000y > 107,000y >, to 127,000 y,. This doesn’t sound like planetary or solar cycles, but unfortunately 97% of Scientists are so dedicated to the CO2 AGW Hoax, nobody is studying Real Science of Climate Change.

Bill Price
Bill Price

just now
Edit

Ice Core Facts prove CO2 forced AGW is a Hoax.
(NOAA officials lied by presenting Ice Core Graph backward to support CO2 AGW. A Crooked Federal Agency is promoting Fake Climate Change Science. )

Ergo selling Carbon Credits is elite Liberal legislative theft.

Kenan Meyer
Kenan Meyer

“…. the elimination of co2 and its methane sidekick would be exceedingly beneficial for a healthy planet.”

Is the author kidding?? That would basically mean that almost all life forms were gone from this planet.

Jim Scott
Jim Scott

This article is full of errors and good old outright bullshit. For instance the wrong statement that the sun’s radiation and effect on Earths climate has been kept out of calculations. Not true it has been looked at and part of the calculations even before the effect of greenhouse gas of which CO2 is the largest contributer. It’s sad to see that having lost any trust in the Guardian that the Off Guardian persists in pushing the same nonsense as the fossil fuel industry. Do you really believe that thousands of scientists working in their various fields of expertise are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and that somehow the constant rise of the earth’s temperature is fake news? Proffering the various changes over time like the mediaeval warming age that despite lower atmospheric greenhouse gas warmed the climate in Greenland was actually caused by the Earth’s periodical wobble on its axis. This tilted the Earth so that the sun’s rays were more direct on Europe and when the wobble returned the axis to its regular position Greenland was frozen again. At that period of time no one thought to ask the people Australia what effect the oscillation had on the opposite side of the planet or bothered to carry out measurements there.
Just like the USA today, Europe thought it was the centre of the universe. Recently a geophysical “scientist” wrote a letter to the West Australian newspaper claiming that the climate science was wrong because warming was preceding rising CO2 levels, a claim often put out by the fossil fuel industry. His mistake was that he somehow forgot that Australia has its winter when the countries in the northern hemisphere are experiencing summer conditions, and as the northern hemisphere produces most of the CO2 there is a lag time before the gases transfer to the Southern hemisphere. Of course when I checked out the background of this “scientist” he was of course a director of a fossil fuel mining company.
There is a huge mass of disinformation put out by organisations funded by such luminaries as the Koch brothers who spend a fortune employing people who claim to be climate scientists but who are geologists working for mining countries and who are prepared to take the money for providing shonky non peer reviewed misinformation. We have to be careful to ensure that we do not haven’t had the wool pulled over our eyes.
What about the Off Guardian getting actual climate scienctists with peer reviewed work to put the other side of the story and review the cooling claims raised on Off Guardian.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

Great Scott: Jah wobble waffle >>> how about OffG seriously considering how we engineer the weather, FIRST & then start calculating the fuel consumption of each national military, world wide … errr, oh wait, one slight problem: when the U$A M.I.C. cannot even calculate its’ own FUEL CONSUMPTION … fact: let alone any comprehensive carbon footprint, lol, & worse still …

Environmental damages from any military are not included in any official ‘picture’ of falsified Data …

My friend, before SwissAir went bankrupt, (sending their pilots with cash to fill up with Avgas), they had a most remarkable habit of calculating their emissions & carbon footprint only up until their own borders … now, i don’t know whether you are aware of the size of Switzerland, however, at full speed, the faster fighter jets required approximately a minute or two to fly in & Out again, East / West, North / South, who cares:
i think you get my drift !

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Whatever you are on, please don’t share it, keep it to yourself.

Brian
Brian

I’ve studied this since 1991. And the article author Is correct. I at a loss for what information you have received to give you the idea he is incorrect. He is slightly off In his comment about them not including the sun yes they have then stated it was negligible at best which is horse crap. Take a bit common since and think if the sun was negligible why was there climate change far before man? We also have had several periods with more Co2 then we have now where yep temperature didn’t change and we had more foliage. Matter fact we pump Co2 into our greenhouses to make stringer more robust foliage. We are actually short about 5% of what’s needed to help end world hunger. Not to mention we could use an average If 2 degrees warmer temp to increase farm land say in Canada again to help world hunger. He is also correct about Co2 not rising for long after temperature increases. Climate change is natural and its main contributor is the sun. Our science used in this is poor at best. So find the other causes because it isnt Co2 and we have no way to control the sun

Bob Hoye

Good points.
I’ve been interested in the science of climate since I completed a BSc. in Geophysics in 1962.
Then lecturers would review two theories.
That the history of ice ages was random and depending upon an open Arctic Ocean and a frozen continent.
The other was that it depended upon the amount of heat reaching the Earth and this was periodic.
I’ve watched the data build and it has been impressive.
Ice ages and interglacials are periodic.
And have nothing to do with CO2, which follows the warming trends.
It has been wonderful to watch this work out.

Richard Greene

Jin Scott sez
“What about the Off Guardian getting actual climate scienctists with peer reviewed work to put the other side of the story and review the cooling claims raised on Off Guardian.”

MY COMMENTS:
Do you mean the government bureaucrats with science degrees who have been making wrong wild guess predictions of a coming climate crisis for over 30 years … while the actual climate gets better and better?

Or are you referring to someone who knows what he or she is talking about, and DOES NOT waste our time trying to predict the future climate, because it (obviously) can not be predicted?

Do you mean government bureaucrats who predict the FUTURE climate will be 100% bad news … ignoring the 300 years of PAST intermittent global warming that was 100% good news?

Our planet has 78 years of experience adding lots of CO2 to the air — only a f o o l would point to those 78 years, from 1940 through 2018, and declare the climate was bad news.

Are you such a f-o-o-l ?

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend

Jim Scott and others,
Clearly, trying to unpick this debate is hard, and lots of people have strong opinions and/or beliefs. I think everyone is in danger of becoming a self-caricature in this particular thread, IMO, and perhaps we should all take a deep breath before we continue?

Question: Jim Scott, what is the use in shrilly demanding others produce peer-reviewed science, while providing none yourself? Are you simply banging your head against a wall? Or is the burden of proof solely on the part of ‘skeptics’?

By all means do post a link to http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki

However, I must say, that’s about the only link I’ve seen posted for a pro-AGW stance, and I can guarantee you people will have a rebuttal already in mind for most of the material on there.

Whereas, and in all fairness, Richard Greene has been posting a lot of links to back up his position. Here’s one he posted below – data collected about ocean levels: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750

This link seems to show rising ocean levels of

2.85 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

gathered since 1855 from “The Battery, New York”.

This doesn’t seem to fit in with the AGW scheme of things, does it? DO you have any comment on that, and can you provide any alternative links to support your position, Jim Scott?

If so, please post away! Unfortunately much of the pro-AGW posters seem to be relying on bluster, and appeals to consensus/anecdote, and vague deference to all-knowing ‘scientists’.

I must add, to independently-minded, well-read people this can easily appear more like blind faith and an appeal to scripture than the ‘hard science’ you seem to espouse.

Really interested in your response.

Richard Greene

Here is my full list of some tide gauges with long term records– non of them show any acceleration of sea level rise that could be blamed on global warming — if there is no acceleration of sea level rise, the measurements of surface warming are suspect:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9410170

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8726520

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8452660

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9447130

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8771450

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8670870

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8665530

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8461490

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8443970

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8638610

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8418150

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8534720

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=2695540

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1619910

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1820000

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340

Richard Greene

Forget my long list of tide gauge URLs — I wrote an article today showing all 10 tide gauge
charts on one page, so you don’t have to click on more than one link:

https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/tide-gauges-with-long-term-records-no.html

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend

Thanks!

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

Rights = Responsibility !

Work it out !

Should I decide to work for a corporation that determines the weather over your garden,

and then profit from your need to purchase food from my ‘good’ self,

AM I CULPABLE ! ?

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

Incidentally, I fully appreciate that plasma physics is not everybody’s cup of tea, however, the rudiments and what we have been doing for ages, legally speaking, should interest us all, since the first explosion of nuclear bombs in the upper atmosphere and the creation of

ARTIFICIAL ionospheric mirrors …

Search Bernard Eastlund 😉 and think about how the U$A D.o.D considered his patents and their potential, back in 1991, let alone B.P. 😉 and ARCO oil & gas…

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a333462.pdf

There is so much available, on this patented science, take yer’ pick …

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/HAARP_Bernard_J_Eastlund_Patents.html

And it should not surprise you that HAARP is no longer the legal liability of the U$A D.o.D, after WTC7 especially !

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Some people choose to live in an alternative, fictional reality, but then there are some who have no choice and are stuck there for ever, like yourself.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Am I culpable?

No, it’s a lot worse that that.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Everyone can have an opinion. The whole internet is full of opinions.

Fortunately, some people spend their entire lives in science learning and researching. They focus on specific areas.

People who cannot understand what these highly educated and dedicated people are doing, or who don’t care about their work, resort to producing their own theories in order to satisfy their own curiosity and ego. This article falls into the latter category and it is very amateurish to say the least, I was way too generous giving it 3/10 below…

Question This
Question This

I have to say i got my feet on both sides of the fence.

On the one hand (or foot) i rather blindly accept the climate science side, because i’m not qualified (& probably to lazy) to fully understand it.

On the other my skepticism grows each day with my hatred for neo-liberal ideology.

But judging the other environmental aspects which i’m more qualified & comfortable with i think a cautionary approach to AGW is warranted. We should be doing more to mitigate against the adverse effects of climate change & its not all about plant food, sunburn & not walking so far to the beach in the future.

Gardenfiend
Gardenfiend

How fortunate that you’re here to sort this out for us.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Poorly written, poor logic, must try better.
3/10.

Headlice
Headlice
Question This
Question This

As with all neo-liberal propaganda there’s always a slither of truth in their lies. Often the issues are with their omissions, unfortunately liberals aren’t the only hypocrites that twist fact into fictions.

Global warming is caused but natural processes, it just so happens that human activity effects the environment because nothing on this planet exists in a vacuum, we are all part of the nature of this planets ecology!

Question This
Question This

*Sliver not slither, please excuse the parapraxis, liberals are very snake like.

Savorywill
Savorywill

Very refreshing to see this post. I got in terrible trouble for comments with critical views of the whole AGW narrative here before. As I mentioned back then, I first was alerted to something amiss from Alexander Cockburn on Counterpunch, for which he got in terrible trouble with St. Clair and other staunch ideologues on that site. Alexander sadly passed away, and Counterpunch sank into oblivion, just a milder version of MSM, with the same Trump hating diatribes/Russia collusion nonsense parroted day in and day out.

If any readers want to wade through her thick accent (bit hard to follow sometimes), Professor Valentina Zharkova explains here why solar activity is more likely the cause of climate change, even accounting for the Little Ice Age, which is not explainable by factoring in human use of fossil fuels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig

I first was alerted to something amiss from Alexander Cockburn on Counterpunch, for which he got in terrible trouble with St. Clair and other staunch ideologues on that site.

I remember that piece by Cockburn. (I think it was this one: https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/28/is-global-warming-a-sin/) Even though I was still identifying with the AGW position back then, I had to give Cockburn at least a little bit of moral credit for being brave enough to go his own way on the issue–despite all the invective hurled at him by less tolerant lefties. And I learned to respect CounterPunch as a website that allowed and encouraged real diversity of opinion and vigorous debate.

I wish Cockburn were still alive. CounterPunch was a vastly better website when he ran it.

Jim Scott
Jim Scott

I used to be a supporter of Counterpunch and of Cockburn until he started pushing the fake unreviewed pseudo science produced by the fossil fuel industry. Climate change is an existential threat that will wipe us out if we continue with piss weak excuses for inaction.

Savorywill
Savorywill

Your response is undoubtedly why he was sort of sidelined after this aberrant questioning of the whole AGW narrative. It went against party-line thinking and wasn’t good for business, I suspect. These online journals do need financial support and you don’t get that if the articles put readers offside, as with what happened to you.

Savorywill
Savorywill

Did you also read the exchanges Cockburn had with George Monbiot (I call him George ‘Monbidiot’ – after his declaration after the Fukushima nuclear accident, before it got so much worse, was proof that nuclear power was the solution to combat CO2 caused global warming!)? They were hilarious. As Cockburn was quite a well respected left-wing journalist, Monbidiot was certainly taken aback by his heresy and his exchanges with Cockburn were classic. I actually can’t find them on the Counterpunch archives – they may have been deleted as they were so controversial.

Admin
Admin

This would be an interesting read if it could be tracked down.

Anyone know where this Monbiot/Cockburn discussion can be found?

Savorywill
Savorywill

This is an article I found from the final say from Monbiot on the controversy. Of course, he tried to end the discussion there, and even has links to the exchange with Cockburn, which you would expect would still be on the Counterpunch archives. But, St. Clair had them deleted, to be expected. AGW is definitely not be challenged in the acceptable ideologies on that website, for sure.

I see that this debate between the two was in 2007. I remember being very surprised as AGW was standard fare for enlightened people at that time, which I considered myself to be.

https://www.monbiot.com/2007/06/12/the-conspiracy-widens/

Savorywill
Savorywill

Amazing how Cockburn’s articles have been sent down the memory hole. If you search, you can find references to them, but the articles in their entirety. I did find this quote, though: It is a tribute to the scientific ignorance of politicians and journalists that they keep regurgitating the nonsense about human-caused global warming,” veteran left-wing commentator and Nation magazine columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote. “The greenhouse fear mongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind’s sinful contribution – and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism, and greed.”

Yarkob
Yarkob

if you know when it appeared the waybackmachine will have it

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

Might have it (in this case does). They honour justified takedown requests.

Headlice
Headlice

https://www.rt.com/usa/462437-amazon-patents-surveillance-delivery-drones/

Are you ready for passover.? Got the right stuff to mark your front door with do you.? I guess once they can get 10 or 20 million of these things zipping around everwhere a day may come when they decide te decimate some unwanted populations.