But not everyone shares the IPCC’s views. More than 30,000 scientists in the USA including 9029 Ph D’s have recently signed a petition stating that those claims are extreme, that the climate system is more complex than what is now known, several mechanisms are not yet included in the climate models considered by the IPCC and that this issue should be treated with some caution because incorrect environmental policies could cause extensive damage.
The IPCC’s mission states: “The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socioeconomic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of human induced climate change.”
So the IPCC’s focus is solely on human induced climate change. There is then clearly an anthropogenic bias as far as climate change is concerned.
A synthesis report by the IPCC in 2007 showed that the total net anthropogenic climate forcing since 1750 has been 13.3 times larger than the natural forcing. (Forcings are physical phenomena responsible for global warming.)
On November 19th 2009, the climategate story erupted on the web. This story seriously undermined the credibility of the AGWT and its advocates. Thousands of E-mails and other documents were disseminated via the internet through the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England. These E-mails suggested: 1. Manipulation of temperature data. 2. Prevention of a proper scientific disclosure of data and methodologies. 3. Attempts to discredit scientists critical of the AGWT by means of internet articles. 4. Attempts to bias Wikipedia articles in favour of the AGWT. 5. Attempts to control which papers appeared in the peer reviewed literature, and in the climate assessments in such a way to bias the scientific community in favour of the AGWT.
Scientists who were skeptical of the IPCC’s claims looked at temperature fluctuations and extracted physical information from them. It was observed that several climatic and oceanic records presented large cycles with periods of about 50-70 years with an average of 60 years. The 60 year climate cycle is a recurring pattern in Earth’s climate, observed in temperature, ocean and atmospheric data, likely influenced by solar activity, oceanic oscillations, and planetary dynamics. The 60 year cycle is evident in global temperature records, with historical maxima around 1879, 1942 and 2002, and minima around 1910 and 1972. This cycle appears in multiple climate indicators including:
1. Global and regional temperatures (Schlesinger and Ramakutty, 1994)
2. Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation AMO) reflecting North Atlantic surface temperature oscillations.
3. Ocean level variations and surface temperature anomalies.
4. Arctic climate patterns, including alternating warm and cold epochs
5. Tree ring reconstructions of summer temperatures in Northern latitudes
These observations suggest that the cycle is widespread and not limited to a single region or dataset.
Possible Causes:
1. 1. Solar and Cosmic Influences.
The cycle may be linked to variations of solar activity and galactic cosmic rays. Which affect atmospheric circulation and cyclonic activity at extratropical latitudes. Changes in total solar irradiance can influence the stratospheric polar vortex, altering large scale circulation patterns.
2. 2. Oceanic Oscillations
The cycle is closely associated with oceanic multidecadal oscillations- the AMO and the Pacific decadal oscillations.
3. 3. Planetary dynamics
Astronomical factors, especially the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit may influence Earth’s rotation rate and consequently climate patterns observed. Correlations include links to volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and extreme weather events.
What are Some Implications?
Climate models (That’s the IPCC), do not account for this cycle, which can lead to misattribution of warming trends to anthropogenic factors alone. Temperature trends calculated over shorter periods than the cycle, may overestimate or underestimate long-term warming. Understanding the cycle helps distinguish natural variability from human induced climate change and improves long term climate predictions .
The following graph shows the Earth’s temperature. (red). The red graph has been shifted approximately 60 years to become the same record but now in blue. Note how the gap between peaks at 1880-1940 coincides exactly with the gap between 1940-2000. The shift clearly shows this. These cycles obviously cannot have an anthropogenic origin. Even a smaller peak in 1900 repeats again in 1960. Taking the least amount of warming that’s from the blue at the right, the total warming is at least 0.3 Deg C. (taking trough to peak). This implies that at least 60% of the 0.5 Deg warming observed since 1970 is due to this cycle. Considering that longer natural cycles may be present and that solar activity was stronger during the second half of the 20th century, the natural contribution to warming since 1970 may have been even larger than 60%. If we take the greatest amount of warming from trough to peak shown on the graph, we get a warming of about 0.4 Deg C, which means at least 80% of the warming from 1970 was due to natural processes. When we add in other cycles and strong solar activity, the natural contribution to temperature rise may be close to 100%.
Human emissions can have contributed at most 40% or less of the warming observed since 1970.
This 60 year oscillation cannot be associated with any known anthropogenic phenomenon. IPCC climate models fail to reproduce the 60 years cycle.
This 60 year cycle has just entered its cooling phase and this will likely cause a climate cooling not a warming, until about 2030 or later.
Below is a graph of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation- the AMO. The blue is the AMO index and the red is Jupiter’s orbital eccentricity. The period of this eccentricity is 60-62 years. The AMO is defined by the water temperature in the North Atlantic. The zero index can be taken as the average. The index numbers just give an indication of the trend. Above zero means a warming and below a cooling. Note the peaks at 1880, 1940, and 2000, the same as the peaks of temperature. The course of the AMO index correlates well with the course of evolution of the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit.
The peaks coincide exactly with the temperature graph peaks above.
The transfer of Jupiter’s orbital rotational momentum to the Earth’s spin rotational momentum is influenced by the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit. The eccentricity has two fundamental periods of 900 years and 60 years. In Simple terms this says if Jupiter’s eccentricity changes, this changes the rate of rotation of the Earth. So what is meant by eccentricity? Our planets move in orbits which are close to circles but are actually ellipses. An ellipse has two foci as shown in the diagram. An ellipse has two axes- the major and the minor axis. The eccentricity is defined as the distance between the foci divided by the length of the major axis. In the diagram that would be d divided by s. In a circle d is zero because there is only one focus. So the eccentricity for a circular orbit is zero. The closer the value of the eccentricity is to zero the more nearly the orbit is a circle. The eccentricity of the Earth is 0.016 and that if Jupiter is 0.048.
If the rotational rate of the Earth changes then the length of day changes. Changes in the length of the day result in weather and climate fluctuations. The atmosphere and oceanic currents are also affected, if the rate of the Earth’s rotation changes.
The changes in the eccentricity of Jupiter have periods of 900 years and 60 years. The approximately 900 year period is closely related to the three warm periods in the last 2000 years. These are the Roman optimum 250-400 AD , The Medieval climate optimum of 950-1250, and the current warm period after 1980. During the two historical warm periods, the greatest reduction in Jupiter’s orbital eccentricity occurred while solar activity was high (Steinhilber, 2009). In the current warm period, solar activity and Earth’s climate have a similar pattern to the two previous warm periods.
At the small catchment scale, the rate of the Earth’s rotation significantly affects precipitation and runoff. This can be seen in the Liz catchment which lies in the foothills of the Sumava mountains in the Bohemian Forest. The 1982 El Chicon eruption was preceded by a significant decrease and re-increase in eccentricity in the period between 1979 and 1982 with a minimum in 1981. The catastrophic floods in the Czech Republic, Italy, Spain, Austria, Germany, and so on, were preceded by a sharp increase in eccentricity from 1998.
SUMMARY
The IPCC has always ignored the influence of the sun. It has seemingly kept the 60 years climate cycle under wraps too. We are told by the IPCC that since 1970, 100% of the global warming was due to humans. Instead of using computer modelling, some dissenting scientists have been looking at actual measurements of such things as the Earth’s temperature, sea levels, volcanic eruptions and so on, and recording the dates at which these various events happened. It became clear that there was an approximately 60 year cycle of climate change. There was a close relationship between the Earth’s rotational rate and many observed phenomena. Some of these phenomena were:
1. 1. 1991 Pinotubo eruption
2. 2. Occurrence of strong earthquakes in the period 1900-2022
3. 3. The AMO index
4. 4. Post 1995 rain extremes in the Czech republic.
5. 5. Catastrophic floods 2002 in Europe
6. Unusually long drought 2014-2019 in Central Europe.
The changes in the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit was the main reason for the change in the Earth’s rotational rate. Cycles of global warming and cooling repeat approximately every 60 years. These 60 years cycles may be due to changes in the Earth’s rotation rate caused by changes in the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit. The change in the rotation rate affects the atmosphere and the ocean currents. This leads to a series of weather events.
CONCLUSIONS
1. 1. 60 year cyclic changes in the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit are the main causes of changes in the Earth’s orbital rate.
2. 2. Changes in the Earth’s orbital rate cause climate changes with a period of about 60 years.
3. 3. Emission of so -called greenhouse gases by humans have little to do with climate change.
4 comments:
The claim that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have "little to do" with climate change contradicts the fundamental laws of physics.
The Greenhouse Effect isn't just a theory; it’s measurable physics. Molecules like CO2 and CH4 (methane) absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. Without this effect, Earth would be a frozen ball of ice.
The Speed of Change: While natural cycles do exist, they move like a glacier, slowly over millennia. The warming we are seeing now has happened in roughly 150 years.
I look forward to Ian’s future articles which include commentary on basic physics and reflection on published studies.
Ah, the Oregon petition talking point. We haven’t seen this for a while! Let’s give some background on the 30,000 scientists number.
Who are the "31,000 Scientists"?
The petition defined "scientist" very broadly. To sign, one only needed a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in any field.
Of the 31,487 signatories, only 39 (0.1%) are climatologists. The vast majority are engineers, medical doctors, and computer scientists. While these are respectable professions, they are not experts in atmospheric physics or climate modeling.
The verification process has been lax to say the least. At various points, the list included names like Charles Darwin (who died in 1882), Geri Halliwell (the "Ginger Spice" from the Spice Girls), and fictional characters from Star Wars.
Even if all 31,000 were legitimate scientists, they represent less than 0.3% of all science graduates in the United States.
Hope that helps frame things better for your readers, Ian.
The argument this person is making relies on a technique called "curve fitting." By shifting data by a specific number of years (in this case, 60), it is often possible to find overlapping wiggles that look like a natural cycle. However, when we look at the actual physics and the full data set, this "60-year cycle" theory runs into several major scientific hurdles.
1. Correlation is not Causation
Just because two parts of a graph look similar when shifted doesn't mean they are caused by the same thing.
The 1880–1940 Warming: This period was influenced by a combination of a slight increase in solar activity and a lack of major volcanic eruptions (volcanoes usually cool the Earth).
The 1970–Present Warming: This period has occurred while solar activity has actually stayed flat or slightly decreased.
If a "natural cycle" were the primary driver, we would expect to see the physical cause (like the Sun) repeating that cycle as well. We don't.
2. The "Missing" Cooling
If the Earth's temperature were governed by a 60-year cycle, the "peak" seen around 2000–2005 should have been followed by a significant cooling phase (a trough).
According to a 60-year cycle, we should have seen temperatures drop significantly between 2005 and 2025.
Instead, global temperatures have continued to climb, with the last 10 years being the hottest on record. The "blue line" in his graph has completely diverged from the "red line" in the 21st century.
3. The Math of Energy Balance
The most significant flaw in the "cycle" argument is that it ignores conservation of energy.
For the Earth to warm, there must be a change in the planet's energy budget: either more energy is coming in (from the Sun) or less energy is escaping (trapped by greenhouse gases).
A "cycle" is just a pattern; it isn't a physical source of heat. Scientists have measured the energy escaping into space via satellites, and it is decreasing at exactly the wavelengths associated with CO2.
4. Why 0.5 °C is an Underestimate
The person mentions "0.5 Deg warming observed since 1970." This figure is outdated.
As of 2024, the Earth has warmed by approximately 1.2°C to 1.3°C since the pre-industrial era.
Even if a 60-year natural cycle (like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) exists, climate models already account for it. Most research suggests these cycles contribute at most 0.1°C of variability—not enough to explain the steep, sustained upward trend we see today.
The reason this argument usually uses older graphs is that the post-2000 data breaks the theory. When you add the last 20 years of data, the "shifted" blue line and the actual red line no longer match. The red line keeps going up, while the cycle theory predicts it should have gone down.
A very good friend of mine who is /was a trader suggests the same thing.
Back about 20 years ago about the time the far left were kicking off about all this stuff , he was trading wheat, corn futures etc. He said to me ' look at this'. He proceeded to show me data that proved it was hotter in the 1930s than it is now.
He went on to suggest a 'super cycle' where the earth heats up and cools down over approx 90 years. Back then he told me there were approx 15000 sun spots ie fires on the sun which in turn increases earth's temperature. In time they will burn out and our temps will decrease.
The difference between the left wackos and people like him is that he states no one actually knows and won't ever know until several cycles play out.
Good fair logical reasoning for sure. unlike the left who are so sure that they are right, but as usual, they won't be. As buffets says....the 2 most dangerous people in the world are those that know nothing and those that think they know everything. The left occupy both of those camps perfectly.
The great people sit in the middle.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.