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.
38 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.
Anon 816,: your friend’s trading expertise makes him great at spotting patterns, applying market "cycles" to climate physics is a bit like using a stock chart to predict a forest fire. The idea that the 1930s were hotter is a common myth based on local U.S. data during the Dust Bowl; however, on a global scale, the 1930s were significantly cooler than every year in the last two decades. Regarding the sun, sunspots aren't actually fires but magnetic regions, and while solar activity does fluctuate, it has been trending downward since the 1970s while global temperatures have spiked. This "divergence" proves that the sun isn't driving the current warming. Finally, a "super cycle" lacks a physical heat source powerful enough to explain the current shift. Traders often look for geometric patterns, but the Earth's climate responds to the total energy balance, and right now, greenhouse gases are trapping far more heat than any 90-year solar cycle could ever provide or take away.
Do you think he's basing his views on those historical commodity price spikes or on actual meteorological datasets?
A B V search under ‘Bradford Anthropogenic’ brings up no less than 79 hits. This in about five years. (Anthropogenic – in other words, ‘human-caused’, and over that time he’s told us he’s writing a book on it not being a factor in climate change.) At the same time most of the world is experiencing seemingly abnormal weather hits. Where I live – coast-wise Central Hawke’s Bay – we’ve had three historic storms since 2011 – four if you count a gale - the middle one being Gabrielle which plastered the eastern North Island, causing massive, unprecedented damage and human deaths. This, surely, qualifies as ‘one-in-a-century’. It is true that individually, these storms have precedents, but the rapid succession does not. In the meantime, many farmers are out there rehabilitating fences that they just recently rehabilitating just a few years ago, but which hitherto, stood unmolested for decades. Their view on climate change may not be scientific, but it's real enough.
Oh Ian, you have got it all wrong.
We all know, because the media keeps telling us , that about 1700, the climate stopped changing after 4.5 Bn years, and settled into a perfect Goldilocks pattern.
Now, just got to saddle my horse and head off to the General Store ........
The article posted here and the accompanying comments merely show that there is no clear or comprehensive idea or understanding behind climate dynamics except change happens. Our planet is beset by external and atmospheric influences, principal of the former being the radiation from the fusion reactor star we orbit. Tongue in cheek, I'm fairly sure it has some influence on the planet and if the overall effects were readily modelled, analysed or fully understood then that would have been the case. Keep arguing and sniping at each other, but the fact remains, fluctuations in climate will continue independently of the puny primate that thinks it knows best. Finally, it doesn't take scientific knowledge to shift the axes on graphs, but it does to interpret the data. The contrasting arguments presented in these debates remind me of the problem Copernicus had with the church; contrasting theories, and only one answer was possible. I think Popper's falsification approach needs to be applied to climate theory or we throw up our hands and just accept the unacceptable.
If the wackos eventually ban oil, I'm just going to burn old car tires.
That's a lot of free heat and energy.
A bit of sooty smoke perhaps but problem solved.
I'm sure the third world are already stockpiling.
How is it possible for human-origin carbon dioxide to be the primary (100%) cause of climate change when human-origin CO2 is less than 5% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere?
What about the other 95%? Doesn’t that count?
I agree with the commenter who made the point that correlation does not prove causation. But while we’re on that point, where is the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?
I haven’t been able to find any correlation in anything the AGW proponents have published - no time-shifted graph overlays, no general trends over time, nothing, not even close.
If nothing else, that serves to demolish the AGW argument.
What Ian has presented shows, if nothing else, that there are credible causes of the climate cycle that need to be explored.
The fact the IPCC by its own definition is interested only in CO2 of human origin tells you all you need to know about this UN-led hoax.
For the first anon. point 1. The name greenhouse gas is a misnomer. Gases in a greenhouse are trapped in there by a roof. No such roof exists in the atmosphere. There is no comparison between the two. Point 2. Most of the heat leaving the earth's surface leaves by convection (G.V. Chillingar, O.G. sorokhtin, I.F. Khilyuk.) convection 67% , radiation just 8.5% , Water vapour condensation process 25%. Point 3 : Water vapour is the most prominent "greenhouse gas" by far and is responsible for most of the warmth of the earth. It so happens that the absorption spectra of water vapour coincides with those of methane. Water vapour averages about 2% in the atmosphere. Methane averages only 0.00017% of all the gases in the atmosphere. Bearing in mind only 8% of heat leaving the earth is by radiation and the huge amount of water vapour compared to methane, the water vapour will absorb this radiation long before it can find a methane molecule and as the absorption spectra of water vapour overlaps those of methane the water vapour absorbs the radiation so that little or none gets to methane. So methane contributes nothing to warming. Likewise carbon dioxide has some of its absorption spectra overlapped by those of water vapour so little radiation gets to carbon dioxide also. In addition, most of the heat emitted by carbon dioxide occurs at a very low concentration. as the concentration increases the amount of heat emitted falls off dramatically in a logarithmic fashion. Please outline what you think are the fundamental laws of physics and please put your name to any comments.
For second anon: These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of scientists know humans are not causing climate change but keep quiet for fear of losing their jobs.
For 3rd Anon: " correlation is not causation" Wow, interesting statement. Isn't that what you left wingers rely on when you say humans are causing climate change . The graph of carbon dioxide concentration from Mauna Loa shows a steady rise and this according to the climate cult correlates with the rise in the earth's temperature. So you are saying correlation IS causation!!
Most honest scientists say the earth entered a slight cooling phase after 1998. which fits in with the 60 year cycle. with record low winter temperatures in Europe and Nth America over the past few years and the failure to correct for the Urban Heat Island Effect, we cannot say the last 10 years have been the hottest on record. Those years around 1933 were hotter. Those are recorded too!
Allen, I'm all for Popper's unfalsifiability criterion but doesn't that mean the assertion in question has to be empirically testable? That's always a problem when dealing with non-replicable events.
You have it in 1. Solar and cosmic radiation is changing due to the sun's binary twin and our position in the galaxy changing.
But the IPCC has decided to exclude the influence of the sun. Just because. They are a joke. But lots of people take them seriously. I don't get it.
I am still waiting to read a logical explanation for the great warming that melted mile-thick icecaps to commence the Holocene, that we are now lucky enough to exist within..
Ian thank you for replying. You mention “ So you are saying correlation IS causation!!” - no one is saying that and to suggest it is a misrepresentation of logic. As a scientist these basic logical inferences must be something you don’t need explained to you. Enter the dialog in good faith and you will get good faith back.
Thank you Barend, but regular historical cycles are replicable by definition.
“Most honest scientists say the earth entered a slight cooling phase after 1998”
For a scientist, this is a particularly unscientific comment! Science is not honesty based, and if there is a suspicion of dishonesty, the peer review process catches this out. What kind of book are you writing, Ian?
Allen, cycles do indeed repeat by definition, but they may not be replicable in the sense of the 'controlled expt'. This is a problem with all branches of science that involve historical events that do not exactly replicate themselves and cannot be replicated. It presents epistemological issues because the classical scientific method cannot be applied to them.
Ian, the argument that methane is irrelevant because of water vapour’s abundance is a common misunderstanding of how atmospheric physics actually works. While water vapour is indeed the most plentiful greenhouse gas, it does not "block" methane’s ability to trap heat because their absorption spectra do not perfectly overlap. There are specific "spectral windows" in the infrared range where water vapour is relatively transparent, allowing heat to escape toward space. Methane is exceptionally efficient at absorbing energy in exactly these gaps, meaning it catches the radiation that water vapour misses, acting like a secondary filter that prevents heat from exiting the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the concentration of these gases varies significantly by altitude. Most water vapour is trapped in the lower atmosphere, or the troposphere, because it condenses into rain or snow as the air cools. Methane, however, is a "well-mixed" gas that remains stable throughout the atmosphere, including in the bone-dry upper layers where water vapor is almost non-existent. In these higher altitudes, methane has a clear path to absorb outgoing radiation without any competition from water vapor, making its contribution to the greenhouse effect much more significant than its low total concentration would suggest.
Finally, it is essential to distinguish between a "forcing" and a "feedback." Methane is a forcing agent because human activity directly increases its levels, which adds new heat to the system. Water vapour, conversely, is a feedback mechanism. The atmosphere can only hold more water vapour if it is already getting warmer. When methane traps heat, it raises the temperature, which then causes more water to evaporate into the air. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where methane not only warms the planet on its own but also "recruits" more water vapour to amplify that warming effect, rather than being eclipsed by it.
I’m using the phrase greenhouse here because it is near-universally understood when dissecting these fairly complex topics. I trust that the usage of a commonly understood word isn’t a barrier for you seeing the substance of the relationship and effect of water vapour, methane, and radiation.
Loving the discussion, we all are learning much about this critical topic today.
Anon 142pm: The explanation for the great warming that initiated the Holocene has been a cornerstone of geology and paleoclimatology for nearly a century, rooted in the work of Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch in the 1920s. He mathematically predicted that periodic shifts in Earth's orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession would alter the distribution of solar energy enough to end glacial periods. This theory was dramatically confirmed in the 1970s when deep-sea sediment cores and ice core data provided a physical "chemical record" of the past, showing that global temperatures fluctuated in perfect synchronization with these celestial cycles. It is not a new or fringe theory, it is a foundational, peer-reviewed reality that has been taught in Earth science classrooms for decades.
While an anon might feel this information is missing, the mechanism is actually so well-established that scientists use it as a baseline to measure human impact. The mile-thick ice melted because the orbital "trigger" set off a massive release of CO2 from the warming oceans, creating a natural greenhouse effect that amplified the warming globally. We know this was a natural process because it occurred over thousands of years in response to measurable planetary wobbles. The irony is that the same logic explaining the Holocene—that greenhouse gases and solar absorption dictate global temperature—is exactly what confirms that the current, much faster spike in temperature is an anomaly driven by human activity rather than the natural, slow-moving orbital mechanics we have understood for over a hundred years.
Ian’s argument that the IPCC ignores the sun is a common misconception, as solar activity is actually extensively monitored and included in every major assessment report as a primary "natural forcing" variable. Satellite data shows that while global temperatures have climbed sharply since 1970, solar irradiance has remained relatively flat or even slightly declined, which is why scientists concluded the sun isn't the culprit for the current spike. If the sun were the primary driver, we would expect to see warming across all layers of the atmosphere, but we instead see the lower atmosphere warming while the upper atmosphere cools—a "smoking gun" signature of the greenhouse effect rather than solar influence.
The "60-year climate cycle" Ian mentions typically refers to internal variabilities like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which are well-documented in scientific literature rather than kept under wraps. These cycles act as a redistribution of existing heat within the Earth's system, moving energy between the oceans and the atmosphere, but they do not account for the massive increase in the planet's total energy budget. While these cycles can temporarily mask or accelerate the underlying warming trend, they operate like waves on a rising tide; they change the height of the water momentarily, but they aren't the reason the sea level is rising overall.
Regarding the claim that humans are responsible for 100% of warming since 1970, the IPCC reaches this conclusion by calculating the net sum of all forces. When they combine the warming effect of greenhouse gases with the cooling effect of human-generated aerosols (like sulfur pollution), the result matches the observed temperature rise almost perfectly. Because natural factors like volcanic eruptions and solar shifts have had a statistically negligible or slightly cooling impact over the last fifty years, the human "fingerprint" effectively accounts for all the net warming we see.
At the end of the day the climate will do what it always has, weather humans are here or not.
It does not matter if people believe humans are the course of warming or not. Human activity continues and CO2 output regardless. The western countries can destroy their economies and nothing will have changed. Based on current tec we do not have the money or the earth materials to modify human activity that is demanded. The lot of it is nullified in argument. Further to that, the man-made thing is not proven science. The evidence is also mounting against it. None of the many chaotropic predations to date have worked out thus far either.
To my knowledge the IPCC has not claimed Monkton’s $ reward if any person can disprove his mathematics brief. IPCC left out the sun in their math calculations. The sun is the primary heat source for the earth so cannot be dismissed. An aside to this the IPCC also left out the earth as a heat source. IPCC does not factor in all variables and no model can match the complexities of climate and the unknown. A single event on earth can change the course of human civilisation in of itself. So, let’s not pretend our species is all-knowing and wise.
Nature has its own rhymes and is impossible for us humans to understand all the facets and interrelationships. We are not as advanced as we think we are in our understanding whichever side of the fence one stands or otherwise.
Speculation is not required. Generations of humans will come and go as they always have and will live their time and experience in real time the climate of their day. Our current climate is very productive for human habitation. Count ourselves very fortunate.
No doubt, if given enough time, humans will develop better ways of doing things.
Here where I live the summers are not hotter, the winters are milder. In time our winters will cool again as sure as night follows day. The planet is a living entity, not a static rock in space to equivocate over. Kind regards Brett
“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. “
Let’s catch up to check in in two years Ian. If you’re right, I’ll buy you a steak!
Perhaps one of the anonymous scientists might like to explain to the rest of us 'oiks' why, when it comes to 'climate change,' we're meant to "trust the science." Surely science is never settled?
Perhaps Hugh could explain why we should “trust Ian”, even while all of his claims have already been disproven.
Haha just kidding Hugh, great to have your insight though, the conversation wouldn’t be the same without your invaluable input.
Ian mate have you finished your. book yet? Can I pre-order a copy? Who is the publisher? I hope it isn’t that woke “scholastic” lot.
To anon @ 9.04.
Re my friend, the commodities trader.
I appreciate your well reasoned response and not resorting to abuse.
My friend is a massive believer of cycles. If you were accurate in your assement of him , then you have not met a guy who uses cycles and charts who has 'predicted' thousands of forest fires. He would be an anomoly....but he actually isnt. He, and many of them exist. His bank balances proves this.
He had data to show it was hotter back then than it was when we were chatting. Im guessing he showed me this data approx 20 years ago, when we had this discussion. His trades are the result of the data he has.
His point is that no matter if it was hotter or not, there is not enough data or accurate data for ANYONE to prove if there is a massive cycle or not. That is his point. And we won't know for hundreds of years. Again his point.
Your response proves this. You claim to have info that proves him incorrect. But you actually dont. You might have some data, but certainly not enough. His point again. This again shows that no one actually knows. You could be right, but come back to everyone in 400 years with actual results. Someone else recently claimed the warming would drastically reduce if McDonald's started using different potatoes for their fries. Who knows, ??
The only ones who dispute this are the left, who are not into discussion , rather bullying, and can not prove their point as despite their claims, as they actually do not have the data. His point again.
I disagree with your response on cycles, especially market cycles. Commodities prices are very much influenced by weather.
We can ascertain how good a commodity trader is by the end result. Their bank balance.
All I can say is that a poor commodity trader who doesn't understand cycles and the resulting 'patterns' as you call them,will not have a very healthy bank balance. My friend has been retired a long time...although he still trades from his many houses around the globe when it suits.
Howard marks wrote a book on cycles and it highlights if you understand where you are in a cycle it helps you profit and puts you in the correct position to profit.
Cycles in all parts of life matter. Infact everything in life revolves around cycles. Again, his point.
Interesting discussion tho.
Still waiting for that explanation, Anon @ 8.21pm...
As am I, Hugh! Let’s catch up at the same time we’re buying Ian that steak!
But here’s the explanation to your question anyway. Hugh, science isn’t "settled" like a religion, it’s settled like gravity…you’re welcome to doubt it, but you’ll still hit the pavement if you jump off a roof. The "oik" defense is a neat way to dodge the data, but science is actually a cutthroat competition where the first person to successfully disprove climate change would become the most famous, wealthy Nobel Prize winner in history. The reason they haven't is that the basic physics of CO2 aren't a matter of opinion or "trust." Calling a 150-year-old mountain of evidence "unsettled" is like holding your fingers in your ears saying “lalala” while hoping the thermometer is lying to you.
Did we land somewhere with answers on this one Hugh? I’ve been very keen to help fill in the gaps, how close are we with answers now do you reckon?
Anonymous at 4:37, I suggest you look at https://co2coalition.org/
Are you smarter than all these experts? I do not think so.
I won't take sides in the debate about climate change, but I will comment on Chuck Bird's appeal to authority.
Appeals to authority sidestep an issue in favour of focusing on people who advocate a given position. One problem with this approach is that someone else can always drum up a list of 'experts' who say the exact opposite. Another is the definition of 'expert'.
I looked at the CO2 Coalition's website and noted the following:
>"[Our members'] degrees ... are in diverse areas of study, including physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, engineering, medicine, meteorology, business and economics... Collectively, they have obtained hundreds of patents, published thousands of technical papers, founded companies and provided expert testimony. As career professionals, they have been professors, physicians, industry leaders registered professional engineers and more..."
The serious climate change discussion takes place mainly within the field of atmospheric physics with supporting evidence from climatology and palaeoclimatology. Most of the academic and professional fields listed do not deal with either. I am sure a business leader has plenty to offer business and commerce but I'm blowed if I can see the connection with climate change. The same goes for a medical doctor or engineer.
Message: if you must appeal to authority, make sure the authorities you cite are indeed that. Better still, stick to the issue at hand and forget the appeal to authority altogether - it's only a slightly upgraded version of argumentum ad hominem after all.
Don’t forget, one of the people Ian cited was Scary Spice. I don’t know what authority he was appealing to with that one, but if she has something clinical to add about the subject of climate change it would be best to hear from her directly.
Thank you for this informative article, in China there is a Sixty-Year Cycle of Heavenly Stems and Earthly Branches calendar system, which has been used for more than 3000 years and perfectly matches this Sixty Year Climate Cycle, and the peak years(1942, 2002) are identified as "fire" years(means hot), the coldest years(1912, 1972) identified as "water" years(means cold) in the calendar system.
Besides, I have one question,: for the global temperatures in Graph 1, could you please tell me where are these data from, from one or several temperature measuring locations or from an actually averaged "global" data?
Thank you again!
If only Hugh could come back. We miss you on this thread, Hugh. Those leftists are running scared
What do the Spice girls have to do with climate change? I think someone’s having you on, Ian
In recent millenia, there has been a 400 year cycle: warm periods with more rain and increase in some human populations, and cool periods, perhaps with famine, hostile migrations, plague and dark ages.
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.