Catastrophic Predictions of Temperature, Storms and Sea Level for the Next Century

 With predictions of the end of the world which failed to materialize, as well as other “catastrophisms” from those who have the obligation to give us a fair, unbiased view of what we can expect from the future, I have decided to take on the task of telling the world what we can expect based on an alternative view of science than has been presented in the main stream media. No, I will not blame mankind, nor will I blame cows. I will neither fault the oceans nor the sea ice. Glaciers may have a part but nothing like what you have been hearing. It is the Sun that will be the focus of my predictions with all its vagaries. One caveat is that given the doomsayers of alarmist climate change, there will be an impact from a small group that will affect mankind. This group will include all those who have concocted and proliferated the scam of Dangerous Alarmist Warming Globally or DAWG. This is an acronym synonymous with a colloquial term for a dog, and a dog of a hypothesis it certainly is. Now I must caution the readers to not make the assumption that is a derogatory statement. I really love my dog, Marley, a yellow lab that was named just prior to the release of the book, Marley and Me. It should be noted that she is not a believer in DAWG.

All kidding aside, this is a serious prediction of the state of the climate and how man will handle it. Aside from being entirely natural, it will not be a pleasant experience.

Beginning at the present time, with the Sun heading into a cool, low activity cycle based on the solar inertial motion (SIM) we can expect a minimum of 25 years with progressive cooling interrupted by the occasional ENSO event. If ENSO events do occur there may be a muting of the cooling due to the “heat shock” from the El Nino warming. Not having the abilities of Theodore Lanscheidt, I will not predict the likely occurrence of ENSO events, although the stimulus of such events should be similar to those in the past 221 years. Part of my premise is the repeat of the last 221year solar cycle that has driven our climate over the past 420 years, at least.

The basic climate prediction is based on the repeat of the past in 221 year increments since 1600AD. That would indicate that we would see a cool period extending to about 2045 with a Dalton style minimum peaking around 2035. The recovery from that will be brief with a Maunder style minimum following. Further, Sporer and Wolf like minimums will follow in close succession. In total, the cooling cycles will cover the next 95 to 100 years. It would be expected that the temperatures would fall in the neighborhood of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius cooling on average.

The majority of the cooling will be the result of additional clouds from augmented solar wind and Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR’s) hitting our solar system based on Svenmark’s hypothesis relating to reduced magnetic field intensity from the Sun. Contrary to the DAWG hypothesis, the additional percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere will not add to warming but will further shield us from the already diminished solar radiation from an inactive Sun in a negative feedback.

As a result of these changes we can expect a number of climate related effects to our planet that will be more observable than any of the 20^th century warming. The obvious change will be a cooling and resultant colder winters to be accompanied by intensive snow activity progressing to the southern United States and similar latitudes across the planet. Winters will have snow persisting into July in the northern US. It was reported this morning that snow piles are still 10ft tall in a shopping plaza in Connecticut on this date May 22, 2011. It is not pretty but is solid ice. Could this be the beginning of the next glaciation? We’ll have to call it the Kohl’s Glaciation after the store adjacent to the parking lot.

Arctic sea Ice, which is already exhibiting a growing multi-year ice extent will be increasing almost exponentially within 25 years with a slowing beginning around 30 to 35 years from present. As sea ice begins to take over Alaska and Canada, as well as similar latitudes globally, glaciation will begin. Snow cover will persist in these regions year round and not just permafrost. There will be perennial ice developing on land. After a short respite, the ice accumulation will continue to grow until at least 2110 and maybe beyond.

For the areas inhabited by the vast majority of mankind, growing seasons will become shorter limiting the types of food crops that may be grown. One may expect that cold weather favorites like turnips may become a staple for our dinner tables. I like turnips.

Snow depth accumulations will continue to increase straining the snow budgets of local municipalities and states, especially in the mid-states US and north. Where to put the snow will tax the ingenuity of snow removal experts.

In keeping with the cooling, the world will need huge quantities of inexpensive energy. The idea of low CO2 fuels will be of no consequence when freezing to death is the only other option and the world will be grateful for any warming. The problem is that there will likely be insufficient energy at any cost if the current fad of DAWG inspired regulations continue. The USA is smart to have avoided committing to mandated CO2 reductions. The problem is that 10 northeastern states and California (as well as some others) have entered into a cap and trade system of energy taxation and a commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by in excess of 80% by 2050. This is technically impossible without creating generation difficulties and electrical supply interruptions. This will contribute to a higher mortality rate with exceptions for highly creative individuals who use unusual methods to retain and produce heat. Forests will be cut down and smoke will permeate the atmosphere from uncontrolled home fires. This will probably lead to more homes consumed by fires from poorly maintained wood burning stoves with residents unable to afford proper precautions like flue maintenance. Costs associated with increasing cold will skyrocket with businesses unable to afford the costs. The same will be true of the majority of the population.

Food shortages will be global, exacerbated by ethanol production that will not be curtailed in time to avoid the worst consequences. Combined with shorter growing seasons and limited latitudes where crops may grow the situation will quickly become critical. Starvation may not only affect the poorest but the wealthy as well. You cannot underestimate the commitment of a starving man intent on feeding his family. No amount of security will be able to protect food storage areas. Oddly enough, areas like Africa and South America may actually be better off than some but should not depend on handouts from the large developed countries. Their self-sufficiency may be their salvation.

Lastly, SLR will turn into Sea Level Lowering (SLL). As has been noted by some of the more astute scientists, SLR is mostly thermosteric, being a function of rising ocean temperatures. In the current Ocean Heat Content (OHC) charts there has been a temporary stasis of the level being measured. As the temperatures continue to drop, so will OHC as will the sea level introducing a new phrase, SLL. SLL will not be catastrophic and entirely beneficial. Although storms may increase as a result of the colder weather, there will be a benefit in the oxygenation of the oceans due to the storm agitation. Additionally, lower sea level will mean storm surges will have a reduced impact on coastal development. See, it is not all bad.

Although I suspect this is a likely scenario for the future, we could minimize the worst effects. We should stop the expenditure of $Billions on DAWG-gy programs. We should put the DAWG supporters on un-employment including the scientists, politicians and the leaders of so-called environmental organizations that complete the money loop. We should develop all sources of energy regardless of side effects. Technology should concentrate on reducing any adverse consequences. Cold hardy, short growing season crops need to be developed. Ice transport vehicles could operate on minimal energy given the low resistance to forward motion.

If this sounds like catastrophic global warming, you may be correct. The difference is that cold is a lot more severe than the warmest weather imaginable. Will this scenario happen? Let me know when you get to where I am going. It should be an interesting tale.

CO2 Cools, it doesn’t warm

A fascinating new paper by Nasif Nahle,  scientist, University Professor and Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico, “determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and .039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands“, has shown that CO2 when added to the atmosphere actually acts as a coolant. So much for man-made global warming.

The conclusion of the experiment is according to the paper:

The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.

Bottom line CO2, Carbon Dioxide , has a lower emissivity/absorptivity than the primary absorber,emitter which is water vapor. Therefore, Carbon Dioxide acts as a coolant not as a greenhouse gas. Who knew? Apparently you can write off that list the 97% of consensus scientists that the IPCC claims support man-made global warming.

Catastrophic Alarmist Global warming is dead!!!

 

It’s a bird,it’s a plane, No it’s Solar Cycle 24!

 Solar cycle 24 has been off to a slow start but NASA has been right behind it pushing like mad. In  December 2006, David Hathaway of the Marshal Space Flight Center predicted Solar Cycle 24 would be the most intense  in over 400 years. That’s not happening. 

 Then in January 2008, David Hathaway again stated that Solar Cycle 24 was taking off. There was a sunspot from the new cycle but one sunspot does not a solar cycle make. 

Then in November 2008 David Hathaway said,

“I think solar minimum is behind us,” says sunspot forecaster David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

 Then voila!! Today, April 14, 2011 an announcement that Solar Cycle  24 has started. Strange but the name Hathaway is nowhere to be seen. In my monitoring of the solar activity up until the latest data point, the sunspot number was right around 25. The prediction for this cycle at this point in its development was 50, so it was running right around half of what NASA said it would be. The reason for NASA’s enthusiasm is a sudden jump of one data point that falls right on the predicted curve. That was apparently cause for a celebration. In the course of time the prediction has now been revised to an approximate peak sunspot number of 90 that is half of the 2006 estimate.

 It certainly seems premature to start dancing based on one point completely outside the trend of this new cycle. Up until today the current cycle appeared to be headed for a peak of 45 to 50. It will be interesting to see what happens. Although the spike seems out-of-place, it should be remembered that we artificially pigeon-hole the data into calendar months. The Sun doesn’t run on our calendar so next mont’s data point could be really low. Time will tell.

What is curious is the tendency of the AGW crowd to want to hurry the start of the new cycle and over-estimate its intensity. If the solar minimum was short and solar cycle 23 was short, the more likely Solar Cycle 24 would be more intense. With a more active Sun the myth of man-made climate disruption could continue with solar controlled higher temperatures. With a quiet Sun, a cooler climate becomes more likely and the AGW myth could be tossed out. AGW is being squashed by the current winter’s cold and snow, despite claims these events are consistent with a warming world. But then again, what isn’t?

Addendum: I have come to learn that David Hathaway has revised the NASA peak for SC24 at 62 which is a far cry from his first estimate. Apparently that 1st estimate was the result of a formula which, it would seems doesn’t work all that well.  Kind of like the GCM’s of which NASA is so fond. Fact is that many sceptical of climate change caused by man who attribute most of the current warming to the Sun, had predicted a much more quiet Sun along the lines of the current solar progress. The late Timo Niroma and Piers Corbyn are among the most notable that got it right early on. Both had made predictions of the next cycle being on the light side also. They are not alone in these predictions but these two come to mind. I should be clear that I can not attribute any motives to Mr. Hathaway but it does seem strange that climate sceptics got it right and no one I know from the CO2 side got it right. And of course they were all on the alarmist side of high. What are the chances of that happening? I realize my sampling may not be huge but it certainly is significant. If 2 out of 3 AWG estimates fall in the 3rd standard deviation from the mean on the high side or further of the sceptics estimates, they are not part of the distribution of possible outcomes without a special cause associated. I’ll let you decide the special cause.

Sea level rise stopped, ice takes over

Ask anyone about what proves global warming, come climate change, come climate disruption and they will tell you sea level rise, melting glaciers and Arctic ice melting. In just the past couple of weeks these arguments have been dealt a huge blow.

One is a paper by renowned  oceanographic expert Nils Axel Morner, ’There is no alarming sea level rise”, that piece by piece destroys the myth of global sea level rise. The instrumental data comes out to a big net  ZERO! The prior 10 cm of rise, before it leveled off, is due to eustatic forces due in large part to the slowing of our planet’s rotation. Who knew? Morner has been very critical of the IPCC AR4 report that had a sea level team without a single sea level expert. Seems like a fair criticism.

Secondly,  there is a study of a section of Arctic ice that shows a significant increase in sea ice thickness and extent. Apparently global warming is good for sea ice. Who knew? According to a report on NoTricksZone by P. Gosselin:

Arctic Basin Full Of Thick Ice In 2011: ‘N. hemisphere ice extent is greater than 2005 and 2006 – the 2 years with the highest summer minimums in the DMI record. In the 3rd dimension, avg. ice thickness has increased by 25% since 2008′

Doesn’t sound like global warming, does it?

And finally, another article on sea level rise, this time in yesterday’s Washington Times :

A former research director with the Army Corps of Engineers and a former civil-engineering professor at the University of Florida decided to put the sea-rise claims to the test. They gathered U.S. tide-gauge readings from 57 stations where water levels had been continuously recorded for as long as 156 years. … “Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century,”

Seems to be pretty desolate news for the advocates of AGW. What started to deprive the world of plentiful energy, by creating a mythical human caused warming of the planet, is being disproved by the most honest climate specialist in the entire world, Mother Nature herself. This is, at least, the 4th time that “scientists” have tried to pin natural climate change on humans since 1895. This has been the most expertly organized, longest lasting scam of the bunch, but a scam nonetheless. Mother nature: 4 Climate alarmists: 0 You know what they say? “Don’t mess with Mother Nature.” You will lose every time.

What caused the storm on February 3rd?

February 3rd’s storm was a mixture of precipitation from rain to sleet to snow. It covered the entire East coast of the US all the way to Vermont and Maine. Al Gore would say it was related to global warming. Others would present a more scientific explanation. One of those is our old friend Piers Corbyn who has commented in his latest release that it was the result of a solar coronal hole that opened up on January 30th. This is not the first time coronal holes have caused earthly disturbances. I have seen this credited several times previously.

If you listen to the scientists turned advocates, you will hear how warming means more snow and that they have always said that. The models show that. NO THEY DON”T!

On the other hand, you have someone like Piers who predicted the storm as a carryover from last month’s predictions based on the Sun modulated by the Moon. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

A coronal hole from Jan 30th, particles  reached the Earth on Feb 3rd. Credit: SOD

In the picture on the left you can see exactly what the hole actually looked like. Just looking at it you can actually see the snow and rain landing on the Earth. That does require a bit of imagination I must admit, but not  nearly as much imagination as the models showing snow from global warming.

Just looking around the TV you can see it all over. The cyclone that hit Australia and a simultaneous storm hitting the US, both predicted by Piers are evidence that it is not meteorologically possible to have both from a single source but certainly it could be, as Piers predicted, of extraterrestrial origin.  

Then turn to the Super Bowl pre-game hype and you’ll ee how the temperatures have been pretty cold in Dallas. Highly unusual actually, even for the season. The announcer on the Super Bowl just commented it is in the lower 40′s as I write this. That’s nothing compared to what we have been seeing here in the Northeast but on a par with what we are having here today.

Move to Phoenix, Arizona and the PGA Tournament and you have a fellow nicknamed “two gloves” who is in the lead. He needs both of those gloves because the temperatures have been hovering around 30 degrees in the morning causing delays in the start of the golf. Highly unusual.

Go back to Australia and the Australian Open Tennis tournament last week. They had some pretty cool weather for a place that never seems to go much below 80 degrees this time of year.

Are these isolated instances not part of  a trend? Is this just normal variation with offsetting warming occurring elsewhere?  No, on both counts. The Sun was predicted by NOAA to have recovered to a sunspot number of approximately 50 at this time. Instead the Sun is operating at approximately Sunspot number 25. At this rate, it is likely the Sun will not hit 45 at its maximum. Compare that to the last Solar Cycle 23 where the Sunspot number peaked out at around 280 and hung around 200 for a few years. Has something changed? You bet it has! It is amazing how little attention has been focused on this development.

So the next time you are concerned that the planet has a fever, take its temperature. Don’t accept the bogus land based stations GISS or HADCRUT, but rather look at the UAH satellite measurements that are not subject to the arbitrary selection of data as well as the equally arbitrary adjustments to the data that is left in the system. Know that there are many places on the planet that have no monitoring stations. The missing grids are just filled in based on adjacent temperatures. The satellites measure the entire planet continuously, and even though there are adjustments made for deteriorating sensors, the numbers are pretty clean. They also do not show the warming observed by the other systems. Gee, I wonder why that might be?

Dr. Roy Spenser from UAH in a recent post on his blog has indicated that precipitation has always stayed within a few percent of nominal since 1979 when records began. He also points out that world temperatures are plummeting. What his records show are a small warming until 1998 when there was a big jump due to an el Nino even followed by a corresponding drop in the following la Nina. What followed was a normalization at a slightly higher but steady level until 2007. Here we saw a cooling that was first predicted by Theodore Lanscheidt in the 90′s. This cooling was interrupted temporarily by the latest el Nino. What we are seeing in the current data appears to be a repeat of the 1998-2001 sequence. When the current la Nina ends, it will be interesting to see which way the temperature goes. I am betting it goes down due to solar predictions by many continuing on through Solar  25 which is expected to be cooler than the current one.

I don’t think we should make too much of the current cooling. It is obvious to me that we are seeing the effect of the la Nina. Regardless, it is going to an interesting ride. If the temperature begins to trend higher after the la Nina, we can be almost assured of catastrophic solutions to AGW that will have no effect except to make a few very rich, a lot of us very poor and a shortage of energy.

Have you read in the news about the electricity blackouts around the country? I mean the USA! Energy policies are already causing shortages and people are freezing. On the obverse, if temperatures continue to decrease, we will have seen the end of climate change as a viable premise. Energy shortages will continue to become more frequent and more severe because no one will have done anything to ensure we have the power we need. If you haven’t a plan to be completely energy independent, now is the time to begin before it is too late.

But what if you’re wrong….and we don’t do something that could save us?

Typically I get this question by  grandparents  anxious about the future of their grandchildren. After all, scientists are saying we are doomed if we do nothing. This is an excellent question and it needs a response.

The first thing that we should examine is why the scientists are claiming CO2 is the problem, assuming there is one. The answer is simple. Despite the length of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, the whole thing boils down to one simple fallacy. There is a chart of climate forcings and the Sun’s effect is approximately negligible. The effect of CO2 and all of the positive feedbacks is the dominant driving force. There are three problems regarding this chart. The first is the models used to evaluate the feedbacks don’t work. A main deficiency is their handling of clouds. The second is they fail to include the negative feedbacks for which the Earth is famous. The third is the claim that if the Sun couldn’t account for the warming, it must be CO2. That last one requires a tremendous leap of faith.

The premier question is why couldn’t the Sun be responsible? The answer is simple. Despite excellent scientist associated with the development of the report and many complaints about this very fact, the IPCC uses only the Solar Irradiance to evaluate the Sun’s effect on Earth. They ignore the reversing magnetic intensity and its effect on the Galactic Cosmic Rays and the solar wind.When the Sun is active as it was in the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s and the magnetic polarity added to the Earth’s own, we were shielded from these extraterrestrial particles. The particles act as nuclei for water droplets and form clouds. Fewer particles, fewer clouds. The particular clouds formed by these particles are the lower lying ones and they shield us from the Sun resulting in cooler temperatures. Again, with fewer clouds, we get warming. An increase of just a few percent of cloud cover and we could go into an ice age. The recent changes in the Sun, including a reversal of its magnetic polarity as well as a significantly lower activity level, have led to a situation where more particles are hitting our atmosphere. This results in more cloud cover. Where  you have cloud cover, all it takes is a change in temperature in the downward direction and you get precipitation. This has come in the form of Mobile Polar Highs hitting the jet stream. All this is controlled by the Sun and the Moon as demonstrated by Piers Corbyn in his successful long range forecasts.

The above is what the IPCC left out of their equation. That is one big omission!

The rest of the IPCC report talks about the changes in temperatures between the day and night, Polar bears and other wildlife being affected, glaciers melting, drinking water affected, droughts and floods and all manner of terrible events for which they have absolutely no evidence. The problem with all these events is they do not necessarily have anything to do with CO2. They could as easily be from any source of warming but CO2 is the only option recognized.

Beyond that, they bring in “tipping points” that have never existed despite CO2 concentrations of in excess of 4000PPM. We aren’t even to 400 PPM yet.

So why the problem? Most global warming supporters that understand the science know everything I have mentioned. One AGW supporter told a friend of mine that “it is a matter of doing the right thing for the wrong reason”. Another AGW supporter said that it may come to destroying the industrial civilization to save the planet. This is the real goal of the whole hype. They would like us to return to the life of a Bolivian villager. I actually read this in a recent article.

So for those concerned about the future of their progeny, I would ask, “Do you want future generations to live in a hut, huddled around a fire or do you want something better for them?”

Solar influence in NE Heavy Snow

It snowed starting late Tuesday the 11th and continued through the night till the next afternoon, Jan. 12th. This fell right into the Jan 11th-14th Top  Red Warning period announced by WeatherAction.com of the UK on the 7th. According to Piers Corbyn, the company’s founder, the forecast could have been done sooner but weather (in the UK) got in the way.  They have been having their problems over there. What was interesting was that Piers picked up on the solar enhancement which caused the normal weather prediction methods to mistakenly underestimate the force  of the storm 1  to 2 days in advance of the storm. Those of us in the Northeast  know well how the local stations “went out on a limb” a few hours before the storm hit to realize the full potential of the snowfall. How much better it would have been to know the real force of the storm a week or more in advance.

The details of how Piers performs these miracles is a secret but the technique involves the magnetic link between the Sun and the Earth/Moon. Part of that is their relative positions. He calls it the Solar Lunar Action Technique or SLAT. Adding the Moon was a relatively recent modification. The theory holds that the Moon controls the tides of fluids on the Earth including the atmosphere. The theory is backed up by countless correct weather predictions over the years, much to the chagrin of the folks that are pushing the man-made global warming hype.

As would seem to be obvious, the Sun supplies the power to warm, and cool, our planet.

EPA to curb CO2 in face of global freeze

One would have thought that the world’s scientific community would have the good sense to look out the window and see what is happening out there but you would be wrong. The world has gone mad over the prospect of reducing the planets CO2 output, and the US portion by some 85%-95%. That was the cited goal at the recent COP-16 in Cancun. They said, “the last thing we need right now is another US” and the US EPA is following in lockstep with those who really want to shut our industrial complex down for good. I hope all you global warming holdouts are prepared to scrap your TV’s, computers, SUV’s, oil and gas-fired heating systems and incandescent light bulbs because they will be coming for them any day now. If you think this is fanciful, multiply your current electric bill by .05 and that is what you will be living on per month.  When the Sun goes down you will either be reading by LED lights or you might just go to bed till the Sun rises. Don’t forget your extra blankets and drain your pipes because there will be no energy to keep them from freezing.

The crazy part of all this is the world is facing the coldest winter in 100 years and some say in 1000 years. Even Australia is getting snow and it is their summer. The warmers are scrambling to explain the apparent conundrum and have recently abandoned their previous prediction of a mild winter and have announced that models have determined that global warming means colder winters. All the models previously said mild winters would be a sign of warming. According to a story out of  Germany here,  there is some confusion amongst the faithful. They can’t get the story straight.

As far as the EPA is concerned, everything is right on track for a 4 degree rise in 2100 and nothing will stop it except stopping the US in its tracks. They have announced they are going to take over the Texas CO2 emissions permitting system because Texas has been reluctant to take action. GOOD FOR TEXAS!!!!!

Folks, what I have been preaching for years is happening and the AGW folks are in a panic to take advantage of the situation before the tea party folks take over in Congress. When the full effect of the consequences of the actions being taken is visible to the population, there won’t be many AGW supporters in the world. Problem is it may be too late. If it is I will just sit back and laugh at those who were foolish enough to buy into all this nonsense.  I will survive but it will not be easy. Some aren’t going to make it. When energy is unavailable, if you are not prepared for a primitive lifestyle, you might not make it.

Who will help you?

There won’t be any help.

Some helpful facts:

Obama says he wants to drive the coal industry out of existence. I saw the video.

Obama says electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket. I saw that too.

Coal supplies 50% of our power in the US.

Coal generators are base power, wind and solar are not. They cannot replace coal ever!

With 50% of our base generating power gone, power outages will be much like Iraq.

In Britain where they have been doing this for more than a decade, folks are going to the mall and riding in buses all day to stay warm. They are burning books to heat their homes/apartments. The death toll is rising. You say that can’t happen here? Just watch and do nothing. If that is unacceptable, try reading this paper from an AGW scientist who changed his position. I attended a presentation by him a couple of years ago and he makes a lot of sense. My point is simple. If you want to leave the kind of world we have now, with its admitted problems, to your 5 to 10-year-old children, You need to do something to stop this nonsense. You must educate yourself and stop listening to those who are profiting from this scam. If you do nothing, your children might as well be living in Bolivia or Brazil. The US and the rest of the world will be a cold, scary place. If that’s OK with you, just keep on thinking the way you are but don’t blame me for the mess we find ourselves. The way that will happen is for “good men to do nothing”. DO SOMETHING!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

James Hansen, how low can you go?

In an email from the desk of James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, there was an interview by  Bill McKibben, co-founder and  global organizer of 350.org.  Hansen, in the introduction cited McKibben’s organization as having demonstrated the most effective leadership in the public struggle for climate justice. Climate Justice?  Has a crime been committed? Sorry I missed that. Perhaps it was the advocacy that Hansen has promoted while being in the employ of the government.

He goes on to discuss the efforts by legitimate scientists, whose only crime is to disagree with him, referring to them as “swift boaters”. I read the book which was the story of the real John Kerry in Vietnam and it was the most heavily footnoted book I have read outside of a college textbook. The references were unimpeachable, mostly government records. For Hansen to at once denigrate these fine heroes of an unpopular war and by the same brush, legitimate scientists, is about as low as you can go. It should be noted that Dr. Hansen was John Kerry’s climate guru in his unsuccessful bid to be President. Hansen received something like $750,000 for his efforts from the Heinz Foundation.

One of Hansen’s comments,

If we let warming continue to the point  of rapid ice sheet collapse, all hell will break loose.

Of course ice sheets are floating so levels of the sea won’t rise. The albedo might be lowered but clouds would likely cover that as has been observed.

There was a real hoax, for sure perpetrated on the public by people who prefer business-as usual. People who concocted a misinformation campaign. They want the public to think that the science is suspect. Doubt is all they need. Their tactics included swift-boating and character assassination, using emails stolen from scientists computers. They did an effective job. Now policy makers continue to sit on their hands, leaving fossil fuel subsidies in place, allowing fuel companies to call the tune-and the devil with young people and nature.

  Those are pretty strong words James. Especially since there is not one shred of evidence to support even one word. Again calling the scientists swift-boaters, accusing them of character assassination and stealing Emails. I never saw any of the skeptic scientists assassinate anyone’s character and there is no evidence that the release was anything but an inside job by an individual that perhaps developed a conscience. What no one mentions are the files that were in the pirated information. If you think the emails were a bombshell, the files constituted global nuclear annihilation. They were interesting reading. You can find my stories on these under my Examiner articles under National Environmental Policy Examiner

 

 

 

 

Hansen goes on to discuss the 2035 deadline for Himalayan glacier melting but forgot to mention that a key author was well aware of the problem but failed to call it to the attention of outsiders because, ostensibly, of its importance to the whole picture they were painting. Hansen then goes on to foster the impression of drinking water disappearing based on the same old sad tale that got them into trouble in the first place. He further states that glaciers melting confirms global warming. Duh? That is what happens in interglacial periods. Truth is the total ice mass balance in the planet has remained nearly constant since measurements began. He can pick any local situation but we should look at the big picture. Isn’t that what you have claimed Dr. Hansen?

He then goes into a long rather boring discussion on CO2 concentrations based on the discredited Vostok/ Law dome ice core measurements. There has been no paper written that compares the CO2 levels found in ice cores (especially grossly deteriorated ones) with the air concentration at the time the ice was formed. That is an unproven hypothesis, just like anthropogenic global warming with all its unproven hypothetical positive feedbacks. Several scientists have suggested that CO2 may actually cool the Earth through increased transpiration in plant life. So the sign of the change is not known.

He then discusses his potential court case and the possibility of a year in jail. My take on that, “No comment.” I won’t go that low.

Now if Dr. Hansen would care to debate a sceptic scientist and play fair, I’d be happy to arrange that. I would have many takers on that offer. Lord Monkton has already accepted on a previous occasion.

Dr. Hansen, I can accept that you believe in what you are doing. As a scientist you should accept that reasonable scientists might disagree with you. There is no call to denigrate them and call them names accusing them of  all manner of evil intentions. If I have mischaracterized any of the points in this article, please allow me to correct them. I am just calling this as I see it and it doesn’t come off looking too fine.

Scientific paper on the Sun and our climate

The Canadian group, Friends of Science, has supplied me with much of the fodder for my articles and the latest, “Solar Influence on Climate“, is one of the best yet in an email from their Dr. Albert Jacobs. Thank you Albert. It is not because it is a block buster of revelations, although there is a lot of excellent science included, but more because of what wasn’t even mentioned. We are talking 53 pages, including a large reference list, and it was obviously intended to be all-inclusive on the topic which was the Sun and its effect on our climate. The problem was that there were several authors that would adhere to something close to the IPCC line and, as determined by the reference authors, several papers that were written by idealogues. I won’t define a who’s who but a review of the list and references in this article may give some clues.

Here was the introduction:

This is the title of a 53 page Summary article by Lesley Gray, Jörg Beer and 13 others which surveys many of the solar variation aspects and their connections with Climate on Earth. While this is mostly from the point of view of the IPCC, there are several sceptics among the fifteen authors and one can read a lot more in this paper than the careful conclusions would indicate.  Surprisingly, the many authors that deal with Solar Inertial Movement from Fairbridge to the present are absent, nor is there any mention of the innovative work by the late Timo Niroma in the 11 tightly packed pages of references. This may make this work more restricted than desirable.(contributed by Dr Peter Ziegler)

To begin with, I learned about faculae. Faculae answer a long standing question regarding sunspots, which are generally cooler spots on the Sun, being indicative of high solar activity and warmer times on Earth. Conversely, fewer sunspots mean cooler for us. This is basic but why would cold spots generate more heat. The answer is faculae are more frequent with increased sunspot activity. Although faculae are smaller and not readily identifiable with normal equipment, they are hotter than average areas of the Sun. So the more sunspots, the more you get faculae and the net is hotter. And visa versa. So now it all makes sense!
The next point in the paper that I would like to address is the following passage:

Model simulations of twentieth century climate that include all the major, known forcings (solar, volcanoes,GHGs, aerosols, and ozone), together with the detection attribution techniques based on observed patterns, have shown that most of the global warming in the first half of the twentieth century was natural in origin, and much of this can be attributed to an increase in solar forcing.

This has been stated before and it is one way of saying that we had warming and cooling (they didn’t mention any of the cooling) and they could hardly say otherwise since there was no significant human effect apparent because there was no human effect. Had they tried to make this claim, it would have been baseless. But then they make the following pronouncement:

 Results for the past 20 years continue to indicate that solar forcing is playing at most a weak role in current global temperature trends [Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007]. There have been controversial suggestions of much larger solar control of global temperatures[Friis Christensen and Lassen, 1991; Svensmark and Friis Christensen, 1997], but these have been severely criticized on the basis of their statistical approach.

The same Sun is having a weaker role on our climate after 4.5 billion years.There is also no mention of the cooling of the 60′s and 70′s. Did the human “forcing” reverse itself during this period and reduce global temperature? I think not. With so much valuable technical information packed into this paper it is almost criminal to append this nonsense. It is somewhat revealing, as well as being entirely hilarious, that the controversial “suggestions” have been severely criticized for “fill in the blank”. The IPCC followers always criticize anything that flies in the face of their “reality”. Nevertheless we would have not had the rest of this article without this superfluous information.

The paper does acknowledge there is a relation between Solar UV radiation and the climate on Earth. They refer to it as:

The most mature Sun climate mechanism at this time involves the direct effect of the observed variation in solar UV radiation affecting stratospheric ozone, leading to associated temperature variations. The resulting temperature gradients lead to changes in the zonal wind, which, in turn, changes planetary wave–mean flow interactions.

I have no problem with this statement and I doubt any of you will have a problem with it either assuming you have an opinion. The IPCC’s 4th assessment report says approximately the same thing but downplays its significance. This article even showed the IPCC chart that shows the solar influence (irradiance)as one of miniscule effect. It is smaller than all the other forcings with the exception of water vapor from methane. Earth’s heat source, according to this article, has next to no effect on the climatic variability. Sorry, but that is hogwash! And of that they are well aware.

 There  is some discussion on the Galactic Cosmic Ray effect on climate. There is a correlation mentioned between GCR’s and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). I did not see any mention that the Sun’s reversing magnetic field on alternate solar cycles is responsible for this but I wouldn’t expect this  from this article given its bias. There was also a discussion of GCR’s,GCR nucleated lower cloud cover and climate. Did not see any really diffinative statement on this very real effect. Where Piers Corbyn, long-range solar-Lunar weather forecaster, might object to this statement is the modulation of the solar wind by the GCR’s is quite dependent on the Solar magnetic field changes. The solar wind effect is orders of magnitude larger than GCR’s. Far from being a minor insignificant factor in climate variation, Piers would, I am sure, categorize this as a major climate “forcing”. I put “forcing” in quotes since it is an IPCC invention and not adopted by what I would call real climate specialists.My opinion. An interesting statement in the article is:

Much of the evidence for solar influence on climate presented in section 3 relies on simple statistical associations, such as correlation coefficients, which suggest a link but are not sufficient to indicate any causal mechanism. In addition, there is substantial internal variability in the climate system, and the observed record is only one realization of the possible responses. This presents a substantial challenge when trying to test mechanism hypotheses.

So, “the observed record is only one realization of the possible responses”. Sorry but what else is there besides observed data. Oh yes! They must be referring to the possible unlikely outcomes represented by the mathematical models that have been unable to explain what we are observing on planet Earth. As the CRU email folks commented, “and it is a travesty” that we can’t explain the cooling.

There is much in this paper that falls outside the IPCC line and appears to be fairly treated. But what do I know? The most obvious gaffs are when something conflicts with commonly used IPCC talking points. Much of the rest is not so politically necessarily biased. It is worth a read. As the note From Albert mentions, there is no mention of the Fairbridge/Mackey effect ala the epitrochoidal rotation of the Sun driven by the Jovian planets angular momentum. Additionally there is not one mention of Dr. Landscheidt who, with his large hands/small fingers analogy of the predictable solar variation, predicted such things as the 2007 cooling which we all observed and are observing. He was correct on predicting some el Nino’s based on the Sun’s parameters. Yes, he missed one. SO??? He was a pioneer in the solar field. He deserved to be a little wrong. El Nino events, far from being arguments against solar influence are actually of solar origin. The most effective argument against this paper is the battle of the season predictions from the IPCC influenced UK MET office and Piers Corbyn, of Weatheraction.com. The MET office,  basing its predictions on IPCC doctrine and models has been 100% wrong and completely opposite to those of Piers Corbyn, using Solar Lunar weather prediction methods for the past 5 winter – summer seasons. Piers-5, Met office-0. I am not much of a better but I would take those odds anytime. To quote the bumper sticker on my vehicles, “It’s the S U N, Stupid! Not the S U V”.

An addendum to this blog entry: I have just received a solar-lunar based forecast for the holiday season for the US and there will likely be some bad travel conditions in our neck of the woods. Sorry I can’t be specific, at Piers Corbyn’s request, but he has agreed to come out with a somewhat more specific free forecast in time to protect the public from the worst effects.