The comparison of Solar Cycle (SC)25 to its predecessor SC 24 currently indicates that there is little difference in activity at the same point in time after they began. Looking at the chart below, the two bottom lines, are SC 24 and 25. Several months ago, SC 25 was more active than SC 24 and that lead to the thought it would be much more active than SC24. The expert forecasts mostly said that they would be much the same. At this point, the forecasts of similarity appear to be accurate
The following chart shows the history of the recorded SCs. Sunspot numbers have only been collected for recent centuries. When a series of SCs having low numbers of sunspots occur, historically, the result is global cooling. When a series of SCs occur with high numbers of sunspots, the result seems to be warming.
Beginning in the early part of the last century, SCs were highly active, peaking with SC19. SC19 has the record for most sunspots. The SCs that followed were highly active until SC 24. This period has been called a solar maximum.
The timing of the solar maximum and the increase in atmospheric CO2 are rivals for the reason that global temperatures have risen beginning in the latter part of the last century. Perhaps they both have been complicit.
I believe that the Sun is the major factor determining global climate. The trajectory of the SC 24 and probably SC 25 would suggest a global cooling is in the offing. This should be a defining period.
This is the sixth posting of a series listing things that the alarmists and the mainstream media do not want made public. At the top of this posting is a link to the preceding postings.
The Paris Agreement (PA) has been a flop, so far. The PA’s target is lowering CO2 emissions. Since the PA was signed in 2015 by some 180+ nations, the CO2 emissions have risen.
The chart below, from Rhodium, shows the percentage of the total global emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases made by the top 8 emitters in 2019. China is far and away the leading emitter and will be increasing the difference in the future. CO2 from fossil fuels is nominally 80+ % of the total emissions. The rest of the total is from cement manufacturing, methane, and fluorocarbons, etc. In 2020, the emissions dropped due to COVID but are forecast to be back up in 2021.
The International Energy Agency forecasts that 2021 will exceed the emissions in 2019. Their forecast is 33GtCO2 for the year 2021.
China and India as well as many nations in Africa and Asia are installing coal-based power plants at a breakneck speed. Because coal combustion produces more CO2 per Megawatt hour, than any other commonly used fossil fuel, it is the primary target of the alarmists. Bloomberg Green data reports on the primary users of coal int 2019:
COAL USER
% OF TOTAL COAL USED
CHINA
51.7
INDIA
11.8
US
7.2
REST OF THE WORLD
29.3
The US has been reducing the use of coal by using natural gas as a replacement.
The premise of the PA is to essentially eliminate all global manmade CO2 emissions to prevent the global temperature to have risen to 2C since 1900. Or else, awful things are going to happen the alarmists tell us.
If the US were able to totally reduce their emissions, would that prevent the global temperature to rise to 2C?
“Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” Kerry conceded.
All the signers of the PA must submit their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), a plan to reduce CO2 emission. Then every 5 years they are to make a new set of NDCs more robust than the preceding submittal. There are no penalties for not meeting your NDC nor are there any for not making a sufficient effort. The burden for accomplishing this objective is laid on these 42 nations that signed the PA. This group consists of the 27nations within the EU, Australia, Canada, Chile, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the US, and the UK. These nation are accused of creating the problem because they have used fossil fuels to discontinue the use of horses, whale oil, backbreaking labor, inadequate living conditions, child labor, while at the same time providing affordable and available electricity— just to mention a few reasons.
The first submission of NDCs were underwhelming. And since then, the story is:
President Xi and the then President Obama met. Obama was going to bring China into the PA. The deal was that China could continue increasing their emission until 2030 without disapproval of the PA organization. From China’s perspective it was a perfect opportunity to build up their manufacturing/economy while the other nations were destroying theirs.
China has disappointed in every way, especially those who thought China was really into environmental stuff. China recently announced that wind and solar are too unreliable to depend upon. An added that they were reducing support to renewables. That was followed by the fact that they were going to build more coal plants. They offered to buy the UKs steel business. Does that sound like someone who worries about the global warming theory? Their new five-year plan that was expected to be based upon using less coal, turned out to be based on more coal.
“At a time when China is so obviously saying one thing and doing another, and clearly not fulfilling its share of the world’s commitments to reducing CO2 emissions — as the world’s second-largest economy– sends all the wrong signals. What China and others see is that no matter what it does — even if it deceives the world and continues its predatory behavior — the US is willing to reduce its own competitiveness, leaving China a thick red carpet to become the world’s dominant superpower, the very role to which it aspires. “
This same Gatestone posting also reminds that the Chinese government are not people of their word:
“It is extremely unlikely that China will deliver on its climate commitments and there are enough precedents to show that the CCP’s pledges cannot be trusted. In 1984, China pledged that Hong Kong’s autonomy, including its rights and freedoms, would remain unchanged for 50 years under the principle of “one country, two systems” after the 1997 return to Chinese sovereignty. By June 2020, however, when China introduced its iron-fisted national security law in Hong Kong, China had reneged on its pledge, and the CCP continues to crush Hong Kong.
China also broke its 2015 commitment not to militarize artificial islands that Beijing has been building in the Spratly Islands chain in the South China Sea and it has never honored at least nine of the commitments it made when it joined the World Trade Organization, to name just a few instances.
The list of broken pledges does not even include the lies that China told the world about the supposed non-transmissibility of the Coronavirus, which originated in Wuhan and has so far taken more than three million lives and ravaged countless economies.”
And another pact, the Montreal Protocol on Ozone is another example of a broken pledge. Jonathan Turley’s post titled China found in massive violation of the Montreal Protocol:
“A study in Nature shows a massive violation by China in the release of ozone-depleting gases like chlorofluorocarbons. China agreed to the Montreal Protocol to stop such CFC pollution. However, it now appears that the Chinese regime is violating the Protocol. A concentration of increased CFC pollution was traced to the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei.”
“We find no evidence for a significant increase in CFC-11 emissions from any other eastern Asian countries or other regions of the world where there are available data for the detection of regional emissions. “
“Several considerations suggest that the increase in CFC-11 emissions from Eastern mainland China is likely to be the result of new production and use, which is inconsistent with the Montreal Protocol agreement to phase out global chlorofluorocarbon production by 2010.”
“If China cannot comply with the Montreal Protocol to control these most dangerous pollutants (particularly with the availability of alternatives for industry) the nation undermines its already low credibility on environmental compliance.”
Look at what is already under way. This chart by IEA shows the Energy Related CO2 Emissions. The table that follows illustrates that the Advanced Economies have a diminishing role in controlling CO2 emissions.
Yellow is “Rest of the World” and rust is “Advanced Economies”.
IEA Chart
2010 2019
GtCO2
% of Total
GtCO2
% of Total
Advanced Economies
12.6
54.5
11.3
34
Rest of the World
10.5
45.5
22.0
66.0
Total
23.1
100
33.3
100
Energy Related C02 Emissions
IEA Data
In ten years, the advanced Economies reduced their energy related emissions by 1.3 GtCO2. The Rest of the World increased their emissions by 11.5 GtCO2. Neither China, nor India nor Brazil nor Russia nor the other Asian and African nations are going to stop installation of fossil fuel-based energy. Their reasons for this are many but they want their people to have electricity and other products of fossil fuels, too.
So, John Kerry nailed it, ““Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,”
If the West attempts to decarbonize, it will not succeed. I think that the further they get in this futile and misdirected attempt will be disastrous —not to the climate but to the viability of the West. The public will eventually wake up to the facts. Price rises for everything and sharp rises for electricity and gasoline, the new name for renewable will be unreliables, jobs will disappear as manufacturing leaves our shores for lower cost energy, and an unease about the US loss of stature and ability to protect its citizens. These things are likely to create public awareness that the government programs have had disappointing results.
If the West attempts to decarbonize, it will not succeed. I think that the further they get in this futile and misdirected attempt will be disastrous —not to the climate but to the viability of the West.
There is another party that wants to see the West fail. That is a movement titled the Great Reset. This blog will discuss the Great Reset in the next posting.
From a recent Dr. Roy Spencer blog: Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us. Why does it matter? It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency. Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist). But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life. Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.“
In the previous postings, the computers predicting global temperatures were shown to be much higher than the actual measured temperatures and that you are not being told that the actual measured global temperatures are currently falling and do not seem to have a link with the rising CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere. This posting looks at the future predictions of global temperatures and how they are biased to make you think they are going to be rising quickly.
To have some understanding how the computers are programed one needs to be acquainted with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP).
ECS
Firstly, an examination of ECS. The 1979 Charney Report, named for the Chairman of an Ad Hoc group stated:
“We believe, therefore, that the equilibrium surface global warming due to doubled CO2 will be in the range IC to 4C, with the most probable value near 3°C”.
That means, for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, global temperature will rise approximately 1C due to CO2, and the CO2 induced increase in temperature will result in more water vapor. Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. That and some other minor changes in atmospheric gases will result in an additional rise of 2C. Thus, CO2 doubling does not just create 1C rise but rather a 3C rise. They acknowledged that there was a lot of uncertainty about this number. How water vapor and clouds interact are not yet known with any certainty.
Climate sensitivity is expressed two ways. Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) is the initial effect of the change in CO2 concentration. ECS does not happen until the oceans heat come into equilibrium with atmospheric heat, for example.
ECS is controversial. There are those that do not believe in the CO2 effect at all. They may not appreciate this postings discussion of ECS and RCP but the posting is addressing what the Alarmists believe. Also, many others buy into the concept but conclude that the effect is much lower than the 3C rise due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Down as low as 1C. As well, there are alarmists that use ECS in the 4C range.
As can be seen in the Part 1 posting, the ECS being used has yielded too high of global temperatures.
It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high.”
If you are a climate computer programmer, you can increase the ECS, and it will result in an increase in forecast temperature.
RCP
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is an estimate of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time. After studying numerous scenarios, more than the available computer time would allow, they settled on just 5 RCPs.
It is my understanding that the upcoming IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report will use somewhat revised versions of the original 5 pathways. These revisions are to accommodate current thinking about the options and potential pathways. Only RCP 8.5 remains as orginally conceived. At least one of the pathways will meet Paris Agreement goal of of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5C . In between 1.5 and 8.5are three others that do not meet the objective but are considered potential outcomes depending on mitigation policies. The pathways keep track of the forecast fossil fuel emissions of CO2” versus “years” beginning at the current time continuing out to the year 2100.
The alarmists and many other warmers are using RCP8.5 as Business As Usual. Most are not notifying the reader that the forecast CO2 in the atmosphere for their predicted temperatures is the HIGHLY UNLIKELY pathway. Some postings have said that it is physically impossible, requiring such things as all the minable coal would have to be burned. What does this amount to? The alarmists are using the Highest CO2 concentration. They are also using a Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that historically is too high. This combination will deliver Highly Unlikely predicted global temperatures. They need to scare you into going along with the alarmist’s program.
Some scientists and engineers do not believe that carbon dioxide emissions and other so-called greenhouse gases are causing global temperature to rise. My guess is that most of the scientists and engineers believe that those gases do influence the globe’s temperature. Within the believing group, however, there is a divide as to how much temperature rise can be attributed to the greenhouse gases. (Your host, cbdakota, is an agnostic skeptic that believes that on-the- whole, the sun is in control).
From a recent Dr. Roy Spencer blog:
“Yes, more CO2 must produce some warming. But the amount of warming makes all the difference to global energy policies. Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us. Why does it matter? It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency. Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist). But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life. Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.“
Recent global temperatures are said to be all time records. Without any doubt, they say, a degree more will cause severe damage and perhaps be existential. That is just another salvo of “we are all going to die” misinformation. Unfortunately there seems to be no member of the media willing to publish a list of the many times we have been told we only have X number of years left before it is too late. The media people are too lazy to do so, or they are politically motivated to keep the scam alive. Part 1 Secrets that Global Warming Alarmist Don’t Want You To Know Shows the inaccuracy of the Climate models.
Are global temperatures rising?
Not significantly. And recently they are falling.
Look at the new satellite temperature measurement chart and notice that the March 2021 anomaly is similar to those in 2014-2015 time frame. March anomaly dropped 0.2C. And this is after two El Ninos that really boosted the temperature anomalies. Will April and following months continue a cooling phase? We can’t be sure, but odds are that it will. Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)
These satellite measurements are not an outliner. And they are consistent with weather balloon temperature readings. Chart Courtsey of Dr.Roy Spencer
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce that focuses on the conditions of the oceans, major waterways, and the atmosphere.
The following NOAA chart shows that the combined global land and ocean temperature has not been rising for the last 5 years, in fact it shows a slight decline. During this period, atmospheric CO2 has been rising. They confirm the cooling trend.
Then there is the global warming hiatus. From 1998 until 2013 there was almost no increase in global temperatures.
“It is believed that El Niño has occurred for thousands of years” and “There is no consensus whether climate change will have any influence on the occurrence, strength or duration of El Niño events, as research supports El Niño events becoming stronger, longer, shorter and weaker.”
So, the observed rise in global temperature following an El Nino-La Nina is as likely to be caused by natural causes as by man-made causes. And the trend in the period of the hiatus was only +0.09/Decade. At that rate, after 100 years, the global temperature rise would be less than 1C— hardly worth all the alarm.
Even at the +0.14c /decade rise of the satellite observed temperatures since 1979, it would take 70 years to raise it 1C.
The warmest ever and the most CO2 ever are claimed, seemingly, monthly by the alarmists. You are to believe that the current period is the” perfect” climate and any change is perilous.
The alarmists want all the scientific work establishing previous climate condition shoved down the memory hole, never to be seen again. The globe has seen higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and higher temperatures than those being experienced today. The chart below illustrates this.
Berner RA, Kothavala Z (2001)GEOCARBlll: CO2 over Phanerozoic time.
And we know that the globe has also been much colder.
So now you know that the global temperature is not rising, in fact for the last 5 years the temperature has been falling. Further, you know that the Alarmists forecasts of rapidly increasing global warming are not happening. Their computer programs are biased to predict increasingly warming temperatures in order to scare people into going along with their bogus science. It is also clear that the rise in global temperatures might be just natural changes. Do not discount natural changes. What do you think began melting the glaciers that covered much of North America some 12 to 15 thousand years ago? It was not CO2 from SUV exhaust pipes.
I am going to use Dr. Roy Spencer’s comment in one of his recent blogs. It goes like this:
“Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.
Why does it matter?
It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.
Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).
But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.
A dramatic global temperature rise has been forecasts by the alarmists for decades. Sea level is forecast to reach record heights as the globe’s ice melts. At every opportunity they tell us that any major storm or weather disruption is due to rising temperature. We are told that this rise in temperature must be stopped. A little more than degree C has the potential to be existential. How do they know this? Their climate computers tell them. These computers tell them that the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuel will wreak this havoc.
The good news is that these computer forecasts of dramatic temperature rise are disproven by actual measurements of global temperature.
One of the recent examinations of the latest batch of climate computers (CMIP-6) was conducted by McKitrick and Christy.
The above is a screen capture is from a Zoom lecture given by John Christy. The upper straight line is the mean temperature forecast of the CMIP-6 and historical forecasts made by earlier computer models. The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period. The two lines , computer and observed global temperature trends, intersecting at zero in 1979 and based on 1979 to 2019 only.
The actual temperature measurements are a blend of satellite and radiosondes (weather balloons) . They confirm one another.
These are the predictions from which generate their alarming pronouncements. They are not reality.
Science News, for 2/29/20 carries an article titled “Earth’s hot future” and subtitled “As climate models improve, worst-case scenarios are hard to pin down.” The subtitle does not inspire confidence is the predictions. Then the article talks about how good these models are but they are missing an important piece of knowledge, that being the impact of clouds on climate.
Note the jumble the computer ensemble produce. The individual computers shoot up and then drive downward with a vengeance. If you could see it clearly, you would reject its output. Real temperatures do not swing that wildly. So they put all the computer’s output together to average out a mean. The one consistent feature of these computers is that they all show rising temperatures. Is that a “man-made” program bias having little to do with the science? (If the climate computers worked, they would only need one model, not dozens.)
Another way of visualizing this is the following chart:
The forecast from the computers is for warming to rise at +0.40C per decade. The observed (actual) warming has been +0.17C per decade.
Christy says about the performance of the Climate Models used by the warmers:
”You know in any other science, if you have a period of time you’re testing and you go through the first period and you’re already off by a factor of two and a half, on the rate of warming.
You say I better stop i’m going to go back and see if I can fix something that isn’t the way and climate moms they let it go, because the scary story is the one that seems to get the most attention.”
The charts are from an ICSF Zoom Meeting featuring John Christy as the main speaker. The link is ICSF Zoom Meeting – Zoom. You will need a password and it is S+R$j6N%.
The computers +0.40C per decade imply that the global temperature would increase by 1.2C by 2050’s. The alarmists target is to achieve net zero CO2 by that date.
“Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.
Why does it matter?
It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.
Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).
But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.
Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.”
The climate predicting computers overstate the global temperatures by a wide margin as can be seen when compared to actual temperature measurements. Alarmists use them to put fear in to the pubic. Their predictions should never be used for making policy.
The UAH satellite measurements of the lower troposphere temperature dropped 0.21C in March. Dr Spencer believes that the recent la Nina is being felt globally.
Right on time, the maximum impact from the current La Nina is finally being felt on global tropospheric temperatures. The global average oceanic tropospheric temperature anomaly is -0.07 deg. C, the lowest since November 2013. The tropical (20N-20S) departure from average (-0.29 deg. C) is the coolest since June of 2012. Australia is the coolest (-0.79 deg. C) since August 2014.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Rebloging a survey of public opinion regarding climate change commissioned by the Global Warming Policy Forum.
GWPF Survey: Perceptions of climate impacts at odds with scientific data
A new Savanta ComRes poll commissioned by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) has revealed low levels of public awareness of key trends relating to climate change and international development.
The survey of British adults suggests that the public perceive the impacts of climate change to be more negative than the academic research would suggest. However, there is also a significant minority of the public who say they are ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ concerned by climate change.
In total, 28% of respondents said they were ‘very concerned’ about climate change, 42% said ‘fairly concerned’, 18% were ‘not very concerned’ and 6.4% described themselves as ‘not at all concerned’.
To see the entire posting click on the following link:
The global temperature anomaly, as read by the UAH satellite system, dropped in January about 0.03 C to + 0.12C. This follows a drop of 0.25C to +0.15C in December of last year. Since the last El Nino, when the anomaly peaked out at +0.50C in February 2020, the anomaly has dropped by 0.38C.
. NOTE: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
Dr Spencer’s note above, alerts the reader that the anomaly chart was change beginning in January 2021. I believe the scientific organization are all remaking their charts to comply with the new averaging period. I suspect that it is to make more room above the averaging period.
Why is the global temperature falling? Has something happened to the Green House gases? Let us take a quick tour of the natural forces and see what part they are playing.
El Nino-Southern Oscillation
Currently the La Nina is dominating the Tropical Pacific Ocean. NOAA published an advisory saying:
La Niña—the cool phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation climate pattern—was firmly in place across the tropical Pacific in December 2020. Forecasters estimate a 95% chance La Niña will last through Northern Hemisphere winter. La Niña can influence seasonal climate in the United States. Conditions so far have not looked especially La Niña-like, but winter is far from over.
El Nino -La Nina is a naturally occurring phenomena in that it has been observed much longer than the industrial era of fossil fuel C02 emissions.
Solar Cycle 25
Solar Cycle 25 has been underway since December 2019. The forecasts comparing SC 25 to SC24 were mostly that they would be comparable. Cycle 24 was the least active SC in 100 years.
The more active the sun is, the more solar wind and conversely a less active sun produces less solar wind. The Sun’s magnetic field carried by the solar wind regulates the number of cosmic rays that enter the atmosphere. The less active the sun, more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere. Thus, low activity should form more cloud cover, thus increasing the albedo. A briefing on how this works is briefly described by a posting on GWPF titled “Force Majeure, The Sun’s role in climate control”, written by Henrik Svensmark:
“The fundamental idea is that cosmic ray ionisation in the atmosphere is important for the formation and growth of small aerosols into CCN, which are necessary for the formation of cloud droplets and thereby clouds. Changing the number density of CCN changes the cloud microphysics, which in turn changes both the radiative properties and the lifetime of clouds.” (CNC is an acronym for Cloud Condensation Nuclei)
This would reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface, thus reducing global temperature.
Currently, the solar activity is at a low.
So, where are we?
The El Nino is a natural phenomenon, that raises the global temperature, and it is usually followed by a La Nina that results in a lowering the global temperature. We are experiencing a La Nina now.
Solar Cycle 25 in underway and it is forecast to be of low activity. Time delays are often suggested for the impact of Solar Cycles activity. This may be the case here and that the impact of Solar Cycle 24 is just now beginning to be felt.
Part two will look briefly at two other natural phenomena that many believe are important in effecting the global temperature. They are the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
I have been consulting or blogging about climate change for some 20+ years. I began in an advisory role to a member of Delaware’s Legislative body. That followed by setting up a climate change website. Alas, I gotten older. My zeal has not changed but my reduced stamina for research has resulted fewer postings. And my level of frustration is peaking.
Unfortunately, one thing is unchanging. That is the alarmists’ predictions are way over the top. I mean by that, their global temperature forecasts, principally made by their computers, are always higher than the measured temperature. Their statements pronouncing that things are worse that they ever have been, like tornados, hurricanes, droughts, sea level rise, disappearance of the polar ice, end of snow, etc. are refuted by the data regarding those issues.
I believe that the number of skeptics has increased over those 20+ years, thanks to the increase in number of outstanding skeptic blogs, like WUWT, Icecap, Climate Depot, Principia Scientific, Junk Science, DrRoySpencer, SePP, GWPF and a whole host of other outstanding ones—-just too many to name.
But the skeptics still have trouble getting through the walls erected by the mainstream media. Why the media have dropped their investigative role and adopted a full- throated support for the alarmist is beyond my ability to understand. Because the predictions of apocalypse by apocalypse made by the alarmers that have not come true, you would think that the media would treat the continuing barrage of over-the-top predictions with distain. Instead, the predictions get headlines and sycophantic stories.
The alarmist’s kind of “science” should not be the basis for formulating legislation. Politicians may be good lawyers, but they are typically poor scientists. Some are opposed to capitalism and want socialism. Look at President Biden’s Green New Deal site and you will find many of them. Others are swayed by the media pressure and think they better go along with the crowd. Some may actually believe the alarmists rants. Very few of them are scientifically knowledgeable enough to see through the scam. Today, I do not have confidence that a majority of the Senate Republicans are skeptics.
The science is not settled so no new legislation, please!
It seems to me that there are only a few things that will swing the pendulum our way. One is a decline in the living standards and the economy. Higher prices for everything caused by the cost of electricity, the cost of gasoline, the cost of home heating, and generally the subsequent rise of the cost of living. These are issues that the typical citizen feels and that might change the politicians.
The other pendulum swinger is for the global temperature to go flat or begin to drop. The global temperature went flat for about 15 to 18 years around the turn of the century. It began to climb again when two El Ninos happened. They are natural causes, not atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I have been researching what may bring about big cost of living rises and what are the factors that will cause global temperature to rise or fall in the future. If I can get something cogent on those two topics, I will post my thoughts.
I am forwarding a posting by RealClear Energy titled “China’s Green NGO Climate Propaganda Enablers” with the following subtitle: “Climate change is a national security threat – but not in the way the national security elite assumes.”
A quote from with in this posting sums up China’s objectives. “China is a great power using global warming to advance its geopolitical interests. Unlike the Soviet Union’s sclerotic economy, China’s is far from a state of collapse. Indeed, China is likely to be the only major economy to emerge larger at the end of 2020 than at the beginning. For China, climate change offers a strategic opportunity. Decarbonizing the rest of the world makes China’s economy stronger – it weakens its rivals’ economies, reduces the cost of energy for its hydrocarbon-hungry economy, and sinks energy-poor India as a potential Indo-Pacific rival.”
Shortly before the Soviet Union collapsed, Greenpeace opened an office in Moscow. It enjoyed the patronage of a leading member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and enjoyed Kremlin funding, laundered through a state-owned record company. The green activist group made clear that it would have nothing to do with environmental groups in the Baltic republics. Recycling standard Soviet propaganda, Greenpeace denounced them as little more than separatist organizations.
This was by no means a one-off. The inconvenient truth: the environmental movement fought on the wrong side of the Cold War. In the early 1980s, it used the “nuclear winter” scare to try to stop Ronald Reagan’s nuclear build-up and undermine the West’s ability to negotiate the arms agreement that effectively ended the Cold War. It turns out that nuclear winter had been concocted by the KGB and transmitted to America by executives of the Rockefeller Family Fund. A nuclear winter conference held in 1983 was supported by 31 environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
This pattern, wherein the West’s enemies use the environmental movement – whether NGOs like Greenpeace, foundations, or “concerned scientists,” to undermine Western interests – is now being repeated, this time in respect to China. A report by Patricia Adams for the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation released earlier this month lays bare the role of the green movement in acting as China’s propagandists.
Climate Change Sanity 
