Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

I think we can agree then, that there is yet too much unknown about climate, and that there is minimal reason to be concerned about life on Earth going forward.

No, we don't agree that there is minimal reason to be concerned. I say we don't know how concerned we should be.

In this public debate, Lindzen says things he wouldn't dare say in a peer reviewed publication. He puts a great deal of effort into trying to deny that global average temperature is a meaningful concept. But many scientists feel that the concept is highly useful, because it gives an idea of the magnitude of the changes that are occurring all over the planet. And, small changes in averages can translate into bigger effects, such as loss of species habitat, or melting ice.

Lindzen also talks about the "prosecutor's fallacy", which he says is: "If A shot B, then A will have gunpowder on his hands." Which, he says, can't be used to prove the converse: that if A has gunpowder on his hands, then A shot B. And he goes on to argue that just because CO2 has gunpowder on its hands, doesn't prove that it's causing the death of sea ice.

Well, CO2 has gunpowder hands, and is standing right next to the dying sea ice. Who else killed the sea ice? Lindzen doesn't say. Aurora borealis? Not a likely suspect. It's really an application of Bayes' law, that P(A|B) is proportional to P(B|A).

Why does Lindzen say these things, which don't stand up to critical analysis? Koch money is standing there with gunpowder on its hands.

Dowlatabadi agrees with Lindzen that climate models have limited predictive value. But strangely, Dowlatabati has devoted much of his professional life to development of a model of interaction of climate with the economic system, called ICAM (Integrated Climate Assessment Model). This makes the strange (and, in my mind, denialist) claim that extreme changes in climate will result in minimal damage to the economy. But, Dowlatabadi also recommends "A Serious Look at Geoengineering", which he suggests as a backup plan "if climate change is worse than we expect". Unfortunately, he admits that "the climate system is too poorly understood to allow quantitative assessment of risk" -- which includes the risk that geoengineering would only further disturb the system, without really fixing anything.

What can be 'bizarre' in trying to find real cause and effect by observation instead of models and assumptions !?

Suchender: what we see by observation, is that the majority of the sun's energy arriving at Earth is in the form of blackbody radiation at 6K temperature. We observe that the surface of the Sun radiates at 6K color temperature. Something is maintaining the temperature of the Sun's surface at 6,000 Kelvin, which requires enormous energy.

Where does that energy come from? One model holds that it comes from fusion at the Sun's core. And, that model is verified by the emission of muons from the core. Those muons can only come from intense fusion reactions.

Where does the Sun's energy come from? Fusion reactions in the core are standing there with gunpowder on their hands.

Why do Thunderbolts say that the Sun's energy comes from cosmic rays and LENR reactions on the surface? I don't get it. It makes no sense. LENR reactions are wimpy little lab curiosities as far as we know, compared to full blooded high temperature, high pressure fusion reactions. Cosmic rays are at ridiculously low flux levels compared to the energy needed to run the Sun.

Or have I misunderstood something? Thunderbolts is not a monolithic entity, there are many different scientists that speak at their conferences. If all they're saying (on a unified basis) is that we need to study interplanetary & interstellar electrical phenomena, I have no disagreement with that.

It's only when they go disagreeing with well established science, without giving any adequate reasoning for that position, that I have trouble.
Last edited:
Merely from Junkipedia (unless the entries are changed within 48 hours of this posting to remove the evidence - like what occurs on YouTube) I could find the following about Lindzen.

In addition to that sentence, there's an entire subsection in Ricard Lindzen's Wikipedia article, covering his work for Cato Institute.

As an exercise in Wikipedia editing, you might try deleting that information, and then watch how quickly it comes back.
Electric Universe Videos on Star Formation

I watched the two videos, and I still feel confused. The intergalactic filaments are the largest known structures in the universe, extending light-years from end to end. They have an "electrical look" about them, as the 2nd video shows in a comparison between an astronomical filament and an earthly lightning bolt.

I don't have any trouble with the idea that there could be electric currents involved in these filaments, but I don't understand the proof that's being put forward in these videos, either.

The 1st video shows that high-mass stars are formed in clusters within the filaments. The video's narrator, Wal Thornhill, says that material is drawn in radially along the filament and into the forming stars. He says the observations are much better fit by an electrical model of star formation, rather than a gravitational infall model.

Maybe this is correct & maybe it isn't. But even if the initial formation of interstellar material into stars is driven by electrical fields & forces, what does that have to do with whether fusion takes place in the core of the star after it's been formed?
A friend of mine here in Eugene, Gary Rondeau, wrote this long article "The Climate Train Wreck" for his blog, Squash Practice. Gary earned his PhD at Cornell for work on a large pulsed ion beam generator, and now works for an engineering firm here in Eugene. In other words, he's a smart guy with a physics and engineering background, and is definitely not on the payroll for any sort of ideologically-driven Climate Gravy Train, either alarmist, denialist, or otherwise. But he definitely comes down on the side that things are worse than the IPCC is admitting.

I'm tempted to cut & paste the entire article, but will restrain myself to quoting his conclusions...

We are so close to the path for eventual extinction at this point that it seems inconceivable that there will not be 100’s of millions of lives lost as planet earth tries to shake us off. The ultimate danger is that humanity loses control of our climate destiny. Once the consequences of climate change are so severe that our productive surplus is eliminated, it will be much harder to muster the resources to build the infrastructure needed to remove carbon from the atmosphere. That we must cease emissions now, that we must cease the growth in the numbers of humanity, that we must clean up our planet from chemical toxins and pesticides that are killing the foundation of all life, these are all urgent actions that cry out for leadership beyond the individual.
And then he wanders off into a political homily, and ends with a salute to Greta Thunberg. Sigh...
I'm tempted to cut & paste the entire article, but will restrain myself to quoting his conclusions...

I was hoping somebody else would jump in here. Gary's stuff is just too good.

Regarding the climate's sensitivity to CO2 changes, Gary has this interesting analysis of the well-known Antarctic ice core data. The graph shown at his blog is interesting in that it includes the Milankovich cycle data, as well as dust levels. Remember Ralph Ellis's theory that high dust episodes are caused by very low CO2 levels, and that the dust is the trigger for subsequent warming events by changing ice albedo. But this data shows the dust comes first; CO2 increase follows much later; and then temperature increase and CO2 increase are almost simultaneous. But, back to Gary:


Typical temperature excursions from ice age to warm period are ~15° C in the arctic, 8° C in the antarctic. The CO2 concentration change corresponding to such a temperature change is about 75 ppm. We have already well-exceeded the maximum amplitude of the CO2 swings in the historic record. On the face of it, it seems difficult to see how we avoid even greater temperature excursions this time around. If you assume arctic heating is four times the global average and antarctic heating is about twice average warming, then the present 135 ppm over pre-industrial CO2 concentration would imply average warming of about 7°C already built-in to the atmosphere if this ratio was to hold for the present cycle. Of course climate sensitivity to CO2 has been studied and debated for some time. Generally, the number is expressed as the average global temperature increase induced by a doubling of CO2 concentration over the pre-industrial value (280 ppm), and conventional wisdom has that number as 3° C +/- 1.5° C. Physicists can calculate from physical principles involving Stefan’s radiation law, the absorption properties of CO2 and the radiation coming from the sun, that a doubling of CO2 will, on its own, generate a warming blanket that would be responsible for about 1.4°C of planetary warming. My naive analysis of the ice core graphs says that intrinsic sensitivity is 4°C/75ppm x 280ppm = 14.9° C for a doubling in CO2, which is clearly wrong. But it shows that this order-of-magnitude discrepancy between what the physics says and what climate history tells us is at the heart of climate uncertainty. There are arguments in the literature that say you cannot make a simple correlative extrapolation for the climate sensitivity because there are other forcings that contribute. I would argue that when you have strong positive feedback, as evidenced by the sawtooth waveforms especially during warming, then you are mostly seeing the natural response of the system rather than a response to the forcing function. Hence the crux of the uncertainty revolves around the magnitude of a variety of positive feedback effects. A review article C. Lorius [1] on this subject recognized an overall feedback amplification of about ×3 giving 3°C to 4°C sensitivity to CO2 doubling, but did not consider the asymmetry in warming versus cooling which I see as significant. If you look at the slopes on the graphs above, the rising slopes are at least two or three times larger than the falling. If you accept Lorius et. al. net amplification of 3x over CO2‘s radiative forcing, in the near term the gain factor is much larger because of the heating/cooling asymmetry. Hence we could easily expect heating rates typical of 7° to 12° C per CO2 doubling in the near term.
I also want to quote Gary's view on the prospects for the ocean's fate, and how it links to the fate of our species:

The oceans are the natural buffer for sucking up CO2. At the ocean surface there is chemical balance between CO2 in the air and HCO3– (bicarbonante) in the ocean surface waters. This process has gobbled up at least a quarter of all the extra CO2 mankind has added to the atmosphere. The result of this carbon sink is that the oceans are getting more acidic from this carbonation.
Hence, the coral is dying and the shells of the shell-building phytoplankton that form the base of the chalk-building carbon-sequestering ocean organisms, the coccolithophores are dissolving. And that’s the rub. If the ocean burps, we all die. This process is outlined in a new paper by Rothman [9] describing a mathematical model of an ocean carbon cycle characterized by internal feedback and limit cycles reminiscent of the ice sheet dynamics. The gist of the argument is that there is a chaotic equilibrium involving total dissolved inorganic carbon and carbonate ion concentration in the upper ocean layers. Various feedback mechanisms lead to natural fluctuations of these parameters on ~10,000 year time scales, and as long as perturbations to carbon injections are not too large, the system tends toward a quasi-stable equilibrium. However, with either a small excessive carbon injection over 10,000 year times scales, or with a larger short-duration carbon injection, the system will bifurcate to a “limit cycle” event that sends the ocean through a large swing of pH and dissolved carbon concentration. The cycle includes a burst of carbonate burial onto the ocean floor that is the key signature of this type of event in the geological record. Noteworthy is that these bursts of carbonate burial are correlated with several mass extinction events. This is not surprising because once sufficiently excited by the carbon injection, the limit cycle dynamic generates a very acid ocean, which rather than absorbing CO2 begins to spit it back out, further increasing greenhouse warming. Left hanging is whether the modern fossil carbon injection is enough to tip the scales and throw this dynamic into a limit cycle mode equivalent to those associated with previous mass extinctions. Rothman thinks we are within a factor of two of the amount of carbon released to the ocean/atmosphere system to trigger the full limit cycle excursion. Such an event would surely end humanity.

  • 1. Lorius, C., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, J. Hansen, and H. Le Treut, 1990: The ice-core record: Climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature, 347, 139-145, DOI:10.1038/347139a0.
  • 9. Rothman, Daniel H. Characteristic disruptions of an excitable carbon cycle,
    Proc. of the Natl. Acad. of Sci. Jul 2019, 116 (30) 14813-14822; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1905164116
It's pretty 'non-interesting' that every big spike in temperature, previously and including this Holocene one, was preceded by Mr. Milankovitch going up. And that Mr. Milankovitch is now (for thousands of years) going down. It seems like we should be well in excess of +8C because of the human CO2 spike, no? Instead, it seems like the human spike has caused relatively little rise in temperature, no?
It seems like we should be well in excess of +8C because of the human CO2 spike, no? Instead, it seems like the human spike has caused relatively little rise in temperature, no?

This doesn't follow from what Gary is saying. "Especially during warming... you are mostly seeing the natural response of the system rather than a response to a forcing function." The question, then, is not how much heating has taken place so far. The question is the rate of change, which seems to be quite rapid, especially in the arctic region.

We aren't necessarily looking at a simple linear response, where a certain amount of CO2 change results in a corresponding temperature rise. The system may have a lot of inertia. Now that the temperature increase mechanisms have been push started, we don't know how far the process will go.

Gary does allow for some "wiggle room" on this, as he continues:

What is really saving us from near term disaster is that paleo-climate warming took thousands of years, so there is hope that in the short run somehow we can handle this for future generations. Although there are examples of very fast warming events in the northern hemisphere, in Antarctica the pace for climate warming is on the few-thousand-year scale rather than decade scale seen up north. This suggests that absent rapid changes from ice to blue water and accompanying changes in global circulation, the global climate control system has some inertia even in the presence of positive feedback mechanisms. But it also demonstrates its inexorable persistence. Maybe, although headed for >7° C temperature rise, if we are lucky, that increase will not happen on a rapid time scale and humans can get it together to do something about it. This, I think, is the naive hope for many of us.
But, in another essay at Gary's page, from 2011:

Current human-induced atmospheric emissions and land use changes are propelling the climate into a world that the last million years of ice core data never experienced. Already in an un-glaciated world, we are now melting the polar ice that has survived for eons. As the melt regions move poleward, carbon that has been frozen in place for the entire ice core record becomes available to the atmosphere, as methane and CO2 evaporate from the tundra. The pent-up climate-changing potential is unknown and almost unknowable, because the best historic guide we have, the ice cores, have never recorded an event similar to the grand experiment humankind is perpetrating on the planet. The lesson that these records teach is that warming events happen very rapidly — out of all proportion to the trigger climate forcing event. On the graph of the CO2 levels from the Antarctic ice core... the vertical line extending to 390 ppm is an unprecedented dramatic climate forcing event on its own, even not including whatever feedback effects might amplify a climate mode-shift. We are playing with fire!
This doesn't follow from what Gary is saying. "Especially during warming... you are mostly seeing the natural response of the system rather than a response to a forcing function." The question, then, is not how much heating has taken place so far. The question is the rate of change, which seems to be quite rapid, especially in the arctic region.

We aren't necessarily looking at a simple linear response, where a certain amount of CO2 change results in a corresponding temperature rise. The system may have a lot of inertia. Now that the temperature increase mechanisms have been push started, we don't know how far the process will go.
OK, so there is a delayed chain of events that has to happen. We have been told wrong that CO2 re-radiates heat directly into the atmosphere?
Last edited:
Does the melting of ice represent a virtual acidification of salty ocean water? If so, I wonder how many corals were killed or extincted by the ice sheets melting into the Holocene? Of course, the ocean water back at the start of all that must have been really salty by comparison.

What is Mr. Milankovitch up to next? Is he going further down or back up?
We have been told wrong that CO2 re-radiates heat directly into the atmosphere?

No, I think that's correct. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes radiant energy from the earth's surface to be captured as heat in the atmosphere, thus creating an imbalance between energy in, vs. energy out. The imbalance eventually causes the entire planet to get warmer, until energy balance can be restored. But the process of warming creates feedback effects.

I think that the energy imbalance caused by CO2 changes, could be compared directly with the effect of insolation changes caused by Milankovitch cycles. Maybe that could be an indirect way to predict the climate's sensitivity to CO2, by comparing to its sensitivity to Milankovitch-caused perturbations.

Does the melting of ice represent a virtual acidification of salty ocean water? If so, I wonder how many corals were killed or extincted by the ice sheets melting into the Holocene? Of course, the ocean water back at the start of all that must have been really salty by comparison.

Salt (sodium chloride) doesn't do much to effect the acidity of ocean water, since it's neither an acid or a base. That is, it doesn't contribute either H+ or OH- ions to the solution.

But, I'm sure that the "limit cycle" pH change events discussed above, must have resulted in massive die-offs of corals, and some extinctions. The miracle is that some corals (and other species) survived the mass extinction events.

From the paleolithic record, it's believed that Earth has been through at least five mass extinction events over the past 500 million years. In his book "Under A Green Sky", Peter Ward argues that our current experiment in fossil fuel consumption could easily trigger another such event, often referred to as "the sixth mass extinction". Ward argues that all past mass extinction events have been characterized by high CO2, high temperatures and ocean toxicity. Quote:

IT IS HERE PROPOSED THAT EACH OF the greenhouse extinctions had a similar cause, and here we can summarize the sequential steps.
First, the world warms over short intervals of time because of a sudden increase of carbon dioxide and methane, caused initially by the formation of vast volcanic provinces called flood basalts. The warmer world affects the ocean circulation systems and disrupts the position of the conveyer currents. Bottom waters begin to have warm, low-oxygen water dumped into them. Warming continues, and the decrease of equator-to-pole temperature differences reduces ocean winds and surface currents to a near standstill. Mixing of oxygenated surface waters with the deeper, and volumetrically increasing, low-oxygen bottom waters decreases, causing ever-shallower water to change from oxygenated to anoxic. Finally, the bottom water is at depths where light can penetrate, and the combination of low oxygen and light allows green sulfur bacteria to expand in numbers and fill the low-oxygen shallows. They live amid other bacteria that produce toxic amounts of hydrogen sulfide, and the flux of this gas into the atmosphere is as much as 2,000 times what it is today. The gas rises into the high atmosphere, where it breaks down the ozone layer, and the subsequent increase in ultraviolet radiation from the sun kills much of the photosynthetic green plant phytoplankton. On its way up into the sky, the hydrogen sulfide also kills some plant and animal life, and the combination of high heat and hydrogen sulfide creates a mass extinction on land. These are the greenhouse extinctions.
The sequence of events outlined above can be considered a combined hypothesis for the cause of greenhouse extinctions and can be named the conveyer disruption hypothesis. There was obviously variability in each extinction, but if the extinctions are examined in a fashion similar to how taxonomists classify living organisms as a species, it seems quite clear that the mass extinctions considered here as greenhouse extinctions are a different beast than the K-T, our now sole known impact extinction.
What would Earth be like in the midst of such an event? Let us crank up a hypothetical time machine and visit one. We have a lot of choices of where to go, back in time: the mass extinctions ending the Cambrian, some 490 million years ago; the late Ordovician mass extinction, some 450 million years ago; several late Devonian mass extinctions, around 360 million years ago; the Permian mass extinction(s), ranging from 253 million to about 247 million years ago; the Triassic mass extinctions, ranging from 205 million to 199 million years ago; the Toarcian mass extinction, some 190 million years ago; the Jurassic–Cretaceous mass extinction, some 144 million years ago; Cenomanian–Turonian mass extinction, some 93 million years ago; and the Paleocene thermal event, some 55 million years ago. All are united by cause, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to change in ocean currents, and eventual anoxia. Just because we get to see some dinosaurs, let’s go back to near the end of the Triassic period, to the site in Nevada that begins this book:
No wind in the 120-degree morning heat, and no trees for shade. There is some vegetation, but it is low, stunted, parched. Of other life, there seems little. A scorpion, a spider, winged flies, and among the roots of the desert vegetation we see the burrows of some sort of small animals—the first mammals, perhaps. The largest creatures anywhere in the landscape are slim, bipedal dinosaurs, of a man’s height at most, but they are almost vanishingly rare, and scrawny, obviously starving. The land is a desert in its heat and aridity, but a duneless desert, for there is no wind to build the iconic structures of our Saharas and Kalaharis. The land is hot barrenness.
Yet as sepulchral as the land is, it is the sea itself that is most frightening. Waves slowly lap on the quiet shore, slow-motion waves with the consistency of gelatin. Most of the shoreline is encrusted with rotting organic matter, silk-like swaths of bacterial slick now putrefying under the blazing sun, while in the nearby shallows mounds of similar mats can be seen growing up toward the sea’s surface; they are stromatolites. When animals finally appeared, the stromatolites largely disappeared, eaten out of existence by the new, multiplying, and mobile herbivores. But now these bacterial mats are back, outgrowing the few animal mouths that might still graze on them.
Finally, we look out on the surface of the great sea itself, and as far as the eye can see there is a mirrored flatness, an ocean without whitecaps. Yet that is not the biggest surprise. From shore to the horizon, there is but an unending purple color—a vast, flat, oily purple, not looking at all like water, not looking like anything of our world. No fish break its surface, no birds or any other kind of flying creatures dip down looking for food. The purple color comes from vast concentrations of floating bacteria, for the oceans of Earth have all become covered with a hundred-foot-thick veneer of purple and green bacterial soup.
At last there is motion on the sea, yet it is not life, but anti-life. Not far from the fetid shore, a large bubble of gas belches from the viscous, oil slick–like surface, and then several more of varying sizes bubble up and noisily pop. The gas emanating from the bubbles is not air, or even methane, the gas that bubbles up from the bottom of swamps—it is hydrogen sulfide, produced by green sulfur bacteria growing amid their purple cousins. There is one final surprise. We look upward, to the sky. High, vastly high overhead there are thin clouds, clouds existing at an altitude far in excess of the highest clouds found on our Earth. They exist in a place that changes the very color of the sky itself: We are under a pale green sky, and it has the smell of death and poison. We have gone to the Nevada of 200 million years ago only to arrive under the transparent atmospheric glass of a greenhouse extinction event, and it is poison, heat, and mass extinction that are found in this greenhouse.
Ward, Peter D.. Under a Green Sky (pp. 137-140). HarperCollins e-books. Kindle Edition.
Now, let me be clear that I don't want to cause a panic here. For all we know, Richard Lindzen could be correct that the climate sensitivity to CO2 could be overestimated by most scientists. Our crystal ball is still pretty cloudy. Maybe there's nothing to worry about.

Or maybe (as Gary says) if this does happen, it might take a thousand years or more for the worst to unfold.

What is Mr. Milankovitch up to next? Is he going further down or back up?

The Wikipedia paragraph dedicated to this topic, looks like the result of an edit war that left no one satisfied. There are four scientific papers cited, making various and apparently conflicting claims. The references are:
  1. J Imbrie; J Z Imbrie (1980). "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations". Science. 207 (4434): 943–953. Bibcode:1980Sci...207..943I. doi:10.1126/science.207.4434.943. PMID 17830447.
  2. ^ "NOAA Paleoclimatology Program – Orbital Variations and Milankovitch Theory".
  3. ^ Berger A, Loutre MF (2002). "Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?". Science. 297 (5585): 1287–8. doi:10.1126/science.1076120. PMID 12193773.
  4. ^ A. Ganopolski, R. Winkelmann & H. J. Schellnhuber (2016). "Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception". Nature. 529 (7585): 200–203. Bibcode:2016Natur.529..200G. doi:10.1038/nature16494. PMID 26762457.
Greetings again one and all.

Yes Jerry, the CO2 effect on the atmosphere is to retard the escape of infrared radiation from the earth's surface at night, keeping the planet warm. This also explains the paradoxical effect that part of the proof for CO2-induced global warming is the COOLING of the upper atmosphere, this cooling due to the decrease in emission of infrared radiation at these higher altitudes due to the blocking effect of CO2 lower down.

Nevertheless, high altitude areas are also undergoing global warming so it just possible that this latter situation (e.g. melting of Himalayan glaciers) is largely due to increased CH4 emissions instead (fracking + secondary industry + methane clathrate breakdown under former ice fields) but I can only conjecture this from the increased frequency of high-altitude cirrus clouds associated with high-pressure systems on hot days. While molecule for molecule CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas, its half life is only about 4-5 years as it readily decays.

Yours faithfully
As I recently posted on another thread about the planets' effect upon the Sun, part of the following excerpted paper discusses the same phenomenon, and how it affects the Earth's climate. As well as long term Milankovich cycles are discussed cycles that are only several centuries in duration, formed by the beat frequencies of the Sun's two internal magnetic cycles.

These scientists are showing that the Earth is heading into a ~30 year minimum between the maximums of the Sun's internal cycles.

Of interest to Postflavians is the discovery of an ~2,000 year cycle that can be seen to correlate with millennialism (whose real God is the Sun). Note that the AD calendar system was later tied to the exit from such a minimum that we are now headed into.

These two-wave magnetic field variations were tested with Parker’s two layer dynamo model with meridional circulation6,7 showing that the grand cycle variations of magnetic field are induced by a beating effect (with a period of 350–400 years) of the interference of magnetic waves generated in each layer. These variations are affected by the changes of solar dynamo numbers in each layer describing a joint action of solar differential rotation (Ω-effect) and radial shear (α-effect). It is assumed that the both dynamo waves are produced by dipole magnetic sources: one in the subsurface layer and the other deeply in the solar convection zone with the parameters in each layer to be rather different6. This difference led to two magnetic waves, similar to those derived with PCA (see Fig. 3 in Zharkova et al.6), which travel from one hemisphere to another6 with different but close frequencies and increasing phase shifts7 and producing the grand cycles of the similar durations and shapes as derived from the observations using PCA4.
The temporal and latitudinal patterns shown by two principal components defining dynamo waves generated in the inner and outer layers of the solar interior6 can naturally account for the difference in observed magnetic fluxes in the opposite hemispheres reported by Shetye et al.12. Since the two double dynamo waves travel with different phases, so that at a given moment they have different amplitudes (see Fig. 1 in Zharkova et al.6) that can explain a much larger magnetic flux observed in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern one at the descending phase of cycle 23 and a reversed trend in the ascending phase of cycle 24 reported by Shetye et al.12. In addition, these two waves generated in different layers gain close but not equal frequencies6 because of different speeds of meridional circulation in each layer as suggested by Shetye et al.12, so that their interference naturally leads to a beating effect with the envelope oscillations (grand cycles) occurring at the frequency equal to a difference of frequencies of the individual waves6. The lengths of the individual grand cycles depend on a real time as shown in the summary curve of the solar activity extrapolated backward by two6,21 and three millennia17,18 making some grand cycles shorter with higher amplitudes and the other ones longer with smaller amplitudes.
All these derivations of the observed magnetic waves, or principal components, generated by dipole magnetic sources were carried out purely from the solar magnetic data assuming that the Sun is an isolated system generating its own waves by its own (dynamo) rules. However, Hays et al.22 shown that small planetary influences on the solar magnetism seen from the Earth can have long-term effects on the Earth’s climate. As established by Milankovich22,23 (see also there are various aspects of the Earth movements in the solar system, which can affect the terrestrial climate changes over many thousand years22,23. For example, the Earth axis tilt is shown to affect the terrestrial temperature variations with season and their durations, while the Earth orbit eccentricity and different type of precession define long-term variations of the terrestrial temperature on a scale of 20, 40 and 100 thousand years as derived from the Antarctic glaciers24,25,26.
These orbital oscillations of the Earth rotation about the Sun strongly affect the solar irradiance and temperature on the Earth. Solar irradiance is accepted to be one of the important factors defining the temperature variations on the Earth and other planets as it is the main source of the energy. Reconstruction of the cycle-averaged solar total irradiance back to 1610 suggests that since the end of the Maunder minimum there was the increase of the irradiance by a value of about 1–1.5 Wm−2 27,28, or about 3% of the total solar irradiance. This increase is correlated rather closely with the oscillations of the terrestrial temperature baseline26, which is found to steadily increasing since the Maunder minimum (e.g. recovering from the mini ice age). Although, it is not clear yet if this trend in the terrestrial temperature and solar irradiance is caused directly by the increased solar activity itself or by some other factors of the solar-terrestrial interaction in the whole solar system and human activities. ...
Dr. Ridd brought up the issue of the Reproducibility Crisis in Science, and thus how can we trust these institutional scientists, especially the IPCC who will not release their data sets.

It's left to see if hurricanes data show a growing trend.
Here is the answer:

"After last year’s devastating U.S. hurricane season, it’s only natural to wonder—as many did in 2005—if 2017’s ferocity had something to do with global warming or if it was just a destructive reminder of natural climate variability.

Despite how much NOAA and other scientists would like to answer this question, hurricane activity varies so much from year to year and decade to decade that it’s difficult for us to detect any long-term trends with the records we have;"

I ran across some information today that addresses both of these topics that have been raised much earlier in this thread.

Meteorologist Nick Humphreys posted images of all the Category 4 to 5 tropical cyclones of 2019 so far. There have been twenty of them. Humphreys states that "There is evidence that the number of Category 4-5 cyclones on Earth has been increasing since the 1980s" and that the 2018-19 season seems to be on track to be a record year for the North and Southwest Indian Oceans.

In the comment section, I asked Humphreys about that long-term trend, and he pointed me to the video linked below. TL;DW summary: when it comes to levels of cyclone energy, we have "detectable trend" on the "balance of evidence", but "statistical significance" is not achieved. The data show an upward trend at a significance level somewhere around p=0.1. The graphs are at t=1407 (23:27) and t=1413 (23:33):

In the raw data at t=1407 you can barely see the upward trend for all the annual random variations, and a reasonable person could hope that maybe nothing is happening. The related graph (showing percentage of cat 4+ storms), at t=1413, appears to be smoothed. This makes the trend easier to see, but the video makes no claims for statistical significance.

On the other hand, it would be jumping to conclusions to argue that we can safely ignore this data. The trend is measurable, and there's somewhere around a 90% chance that the trend is "no coincidence", as we like to say around here.

Which brings us to the topic of the "Reproducibility Crisis" in science. Turns out that some statisticians are coming to realize that a big part of the "Crisis" stems directly from the concept of "statistical significance". They say that specific significance levels, such as the typical p>0.05, create a false dichotomy between success or failure of reproduction experiments.

It's very possible that two different studies might disagree about "statistical significance" based on random variability of experimental data, or differences in sample size, even when both studies are investigating the same phenomenon using the same methods. Thus, complaints about "failure to reproduce results" could themselves be the result of faulty statistical analysis.

This article in Nature reports that some 800 statisticians have signed a petition calling for the elimination of the concept of "statistical significance" in scientific papers. They recommend replacing it with measures of "effect size" and "compatibility intervals", so that results between different studies can be compared on a more rational basis.

Scientists rise up against statistical significance
Let’s be clear about what must stop: we should never conclude there is ‘no difference’ or ‘no association’ just because a P value is larger than a threshold such as 0.05 or, equivalently, because a confidence interval includes zero. Neither should we conclude that two studies conflict because one had a statistically significant result and the other did not. These errors waste research efforts and misinform policy decisions.
For example, consider a series of analyses of unintended effects of anti-inflammatory drugs. Because their results were statistically non-significant, one set of researchers concluded that exposure to the drugs was “not associated” with new-onset atrial fibrillation (the most common disturbance to heart rhythm) and that the results stood in contrast to those from an earlier study with a statistically significant outcome.
Now, let’s look at the actual data. The researchers describing their statistically non-significant results found a risk ratio of 1.2 (that is, a 20% greater risk in exposed patients relative to unexposed ones). They also found a 95% confidence interval that spanned everything from a trifling risk decrease of 3% to a considerable risk increase of 48% (P = 0.091; our calculation). The researchers from the earlier, statistically significant, study found the exact same risk ratio of 1.2. That study was simply more precise, with an interval spanning from 9% to 33% greater risk (P = 0.0003; our calculation).
It is ludicrous to conclude that the statistically non-significant results showed “no association”, when the interval estimate included serious risk increases; it is equally absurd to claim these results were in contrast with the earlier results showing an identical observed effect. Yet these common practices show how reliance on thresholds of statistical significance can mislead us (see ‘Beware false conclusions’).
Last edited:
About the weather on Earth and Mars :

If I understand the video correctly, they're claiming that the energy for lightning discharges in the upper atmosphere comes primarily from charged particles arriving from the Sun, rather than static electric charge separation inside of clouds. And, they claim a correlation between lightning-like events on Mars, and solar coronal mass ejection (CME) events.

Looking around the web, I see a lot of sites that say that CME and solar wind consist of plasmas of highly energetic charged particles, mostly protons and electrons. CME's also carry a powerful magnetic field. So I don't have a problem with the idea that solar discharges could be correlated with lightning, especially in the upper atmosphere.

But -- once again here, I don't see how any of this is incompatible with the conventional scientific wisdom. Lightning in the lower atmosphere is mostly caused by accumulation of electrostatic charges inside of clouds, driven by air currents. From the NOAA's web site,

The main charging area in a thunderstorm occurs in the central part of the storm where ... the combination of temperature and rapid upward air movement produces a mixture of super-cooled cloud droplets (small water droplets below freezing), small ice crystals, and soft hail (graupel). The updraft carries the super-cooled cloud droplets and very small ice crystals upward. At the same time, the graupel, which is considerably larger and denser, tends to fall or be suspended in the rising air. The differences in the movement of the precipitation cause collisions to occur. When the rising ice crystals collide with graupel, the ice crystals become positively charged and the graupel becomes negatively charged ... The result is that the upper part of the thunderstorm cloud becomes positively charged while the middle to lower part of the thunderstorm cloud becomes negatively charged....
Visit the site to see nifty animated GIF's illustrating the process.

Surely the Thunderbolts Project wouldn't disagree with this basic science regarding ... thunderbolts?
The following is an interesting debate on the effects of CO2 on climate.

The alarmist, astronomer Jeffrey Bennett, opens his argument stating that the planet Venus proves that CO2 is THE climate problem on Earth. Yet he neglects to say that the lazy CO2 cousins on Mars (at 95%) seem to cause very cold temperatures by the same logic. No, both proximity to the Sun and the much, much higher gas pressure on Venus are also the cause for the high temperatures on Venus.

At just before 70 minutes, Bennett explains that Mr. Milankovitch triggers the CO2 do its naughty business, sometimes, as Craig Idso's graphs show hundreds to thousands of years later, after temperatures have massively changed.

Solar scientists argue that it is the Sun (and also its various relationships to the Earth) that is the primary driver:

Last edited:
The following is an interesting debate on the effects of CO2 on climate.

Quote from the debater on the skeptic side, Craig Idso, transcribed from his opening statement:

In arguing for this resolution, I want to make it clear from the outset that there is no debate whatsoever as to whether or not atmospheric co2 or carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas when present in the atmosphere. This one carbon and two oxygen molecule indeed has the capacity to absorb infrared radiation and warm the planet. There is also no debate as to whether or not the concentration of atmospheric co2 is rising over the past two centuries. It has increased from meager 0.028 percent of the atmosphere by volume, to a still meager 0.041% today. Furthermore there is no argument that global temperatures are warmer today than they were 50, 100, or even 200 years ago. The topic or question which is open to discussion, however, and for which we are all here this evening, is whether or not the modern increase in atmospheric co2 has caused or is presently causing dangerous global warming -- warming so severe that it is threatening life all across the planet.
Global warming is widely believed to be a contributing factor in the great extinction of species currently taking place. However, it seems to me that it's a bit of a stretch to say that life is threatened all across the planet, just by current conditions.

From Idso's bio in the blurb below the video: "...serves as an adjunct scholar for the Cato Institute and as a policy advisor for the CO2 Coalition, the Heartland Institute and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow." On the payroll for petrochemical interests: check! Good to know, though, that even Cato and Heartland's paid shills are admitting MMGW is a real thing.

The most important question, which the above formulation seems to avoid, is: how bad are things likely to get in the near future, or the next 100 years?

The alarmist, astronomer, Jeffrey Bennett opens his argument stating that the planet Venus proves that CO2 is THE climate problem on Earth.

Sometimes you have to wonder if the "alarmists" in some of these debates, might even be fake opposition. The parallel between a warmer Earth vs. Venus is more of a cautionary illustration of a concept, rather than a literal equation. Yes, Venus is closer to the sun, so Earth isn't likely to get exactly that hot.
Last edited: