Friday, March 18, 2016

The Imminent Collapse of the CAGW Delusion.


1.The Problems with the IPCC - GCM  Climate Forecasting methods.
 Harrison and Stainforth say in: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/eost2009EO13/pdf

"Reductionism argues that deterministic approaches to science and positivist views of causation are the appropriate methodologies for exploring complex, multivariate systems ... where the behavior of a complex system can be deduced from the fundamental reductionist understanding. Rather, large, complex systems may be better understood, and perhaps only understood, in terms of observed, emergent behavior. The practical implication is that there exist system behaviors and structures that are not amenable to explanation or prediction by reductionist methodologies ... the GCM is the numerical solution of a complex but purely deterministic set of nonlinear partial differential equations over a defined spatiotemporal grid, and no attempt is made to introduce any quantification of uncertainty into its construction ... [T]he reductionist argument that large scale behaviour can be represented by the aggregative effects of smaller scale process has never been validated in the context of natural environmental systems ."
The modelling approach is  inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4
and for a detailed discussion see Section 1 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
 
Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity.It recognizes the the short comings of the models.The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which  concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that it  doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability (i.e., we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2). This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way.
Even the IPCC itself  has now  given up on estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”
Paradoxically they still claim that UNFCCC  can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels .This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational.There is no empirical evidence which proves that CO2 has anything more than a negligible effect on temperatures. 

Equally importantly the climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming delusion rests are structured without regard to the natural 60+/- and more importantly 1000 year periodicities ( observed emergent behaviors) so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers  approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. The models are back-tuned for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial.


Fig1  (Amended ( Green Line Added) from Syun-Ichi Akasofu) http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217



 
 

 
Figure 1 above compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu paper forecast and with the simple but most  economic  working hypothesis of this post (green line) that the peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the  millennial cycle  so obvious in the temperature data.The data also shows that the well documented 60 year temperature cycle coincidentally peaks  at about the same time.

The temperature  projections of the IPCC -  UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.  As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless.
 A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.

2. The Past is the Key to the Present and Future . Finding then Forecasting the Natural Quasi-Periodicities Governing Earths Climate - the Geological Approach. 

2.1 General Principles.
 The core competency in the Geological Sciences is the ability to recognize and correlate the changing patterns of events in time and space. This requires a mindset and set of skills very different from the reductionist approach to nature, but one which is appropriate and  necessary for investigating past climates and forecasting future climate trends. Scientists and modelers with backgrounds in physics and maths usually have little experience in correlating multiple, often fragmentary, data sets of multiple variables.

It is necessary  build an understanding of the patterns and a narrative of general trends  from the actual individual local and regional time series of particular variables. Earth's climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths.
It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in relation to the  current phases of these different  interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.
a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles which are modulated by
b)  Solar "activity" cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.

2.2 The Present Warming in Relation to the Milankovitch Cycles.

      Fig. 2 (From Wiki-Milankovic)




 We are past the peak  of the latest interglacial warming ( Fig.2) with a declining trend for the last 3500 years. (Fig 3)

2.3 The Quasi -  Millennial Solar Cycle -Periodicity.

      Fig 3 (http://www.climate4you.com/)  -(See Humlum's overview section)

 

 

Note the peaks at about 10,000,9000,8000,7000,2000,1000 BP and then the latest peaks seen more clearly at about 990  in Fig 4 and about 2003 in Fig 5.



Fig 4. ( Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5)   http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf  )


Fig 5.


 
5a
Fig 5 is the RSS data and Fig 5a the Hadcrut 4 data which shows a small difference in the timing of the millennial peak.
From Figures 4 and 5 the period of the latest millennial cycle is from about 990 to 2003 or 1,013 years. This is remarkably  consistent with the 1,024 periodicity seen in the solar activity wavelet analysis from https://epic.awi.de/30297/1/PNAS-2012-Steinhilber-1118965109.pdf
It is of interest that the quasi millennial peaks in Fig 3 are from Greenland while the 1024 year periodicities in Fig 6 are from Antarctica.

Fig 6



2.4 The Quasi-Millennial  Temperature Cycle  - Amplitude

A useful empirical estimate of the amplitude of the NH temperature millennial cycle can made from the 50 year moving average curve (red) of Fig 4 above.It is about 1.7 degrees C from the 990 peak to the LIA minimum at about 1640.This is consonant with the estimate of  Shindell, Schmidt,Mann et al Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf

2.5 The Solar Driver.
.The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1024 year range.  From Fig 4 above it is trivially obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle.

The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data.
The general increase in solar activity which accounts for the temperature rise since the Little Ice Age is obvious in the ice core 10 Be flux data between about  1700 and the late twentieth century.
Fig. 7 ( From Berggren et al) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL038004/full



 


 
My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 8 combined with  Figures 4,5, 6  and 7 above  is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991.

Fig 8

 There is a varying lag between the solar activity peak and the corresponding peak in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the solar activity peak and the millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data at 2003.( Fig 5 above )

3.Forecasts

 3.1 Long Term .
I am a firm believer in the value of Ockham's razor thus the simplest working hypothesis based on the weight of all the data  is that  the millennial temperature cycle peaked at about 2003 and that the general  trends from 990 - 2003 seen in Fig 4 will  repeat from 2003-3016 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2640. 
3.2 Medium Term.
Looking at the shorter 60+/-  year  wavelengths the simplest hypothesis is that the cooling trend from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the rising trend. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig,1.which shows cooling until 2038 ,slight warming to 2073, then cooling to the end of the century.
3.3  Current Trends
The cooling trend from the millennial peak at 2003  is illustrated  in blue in Fig 5. From 2015 on,the decadal cooling trend is obscured by the current El Nino. The El Nino peaked in March 2016. Thereafter during 2017 - 2019 we might reasonably expect a cooling at least as great as  that seen during the 1998 El Nino decline in Fig 5 - about 0.9 C
It is worth noting that the increase in the neutron count  in 2007 seen in Fig 8 indicated a possible solar regime change which might produce an unexpectedly sharp decline in RSS temperatures 12 years later - 2019 +/- to levels significantly below the blue trend line in Fig 5.
 
 4.Conclusions.
To the detriment of the reputation of science in general, establishment climate scientists made  two  egregious errors of judgment in their method of approach to climate forecasting  and thus in their advice to policy makers in successive SPMs. First, they based their analyses on  inherently untestable  and specifically structurally flawed models which  included many questionable assumptions. Second they totally ignored the natural, solar driven , millennial  and multi-decadal quasi-cycles. Unless we know where we are with regard to and then  incorporate the phase of the millennial cycle in particular, useful forecasting is simply impossible.
It is fashionable  in establishment climate circles to present climate forecasting as a "wicked" problem.I would by contrast contend that by adopting the appropriate time scale and method  for analysis it becomes entirely tractable so that commonsense working hypotheses with sufficient likely accuracy and chances of success to guide policy can be formulated.
 If the real outcomes follow the near term forecasts in  para 3.3 above  I suggest that the establishment position is untenable past 2020.This is imminent in climate terms.  The essential point of this post is that the 2003 peak in Fig 1 marks a millennial peak which is totally ignored  in all  the IPCC projections.


































 

30 comments:

  1. The great problem with global warming alarmism, is that it was never based on science. So whilst you are entirely right that the science does not support it, the truth is that it never supported it and instead it was pure belief that kept it going.

    So, yes, if it were science, then disproving it ought to make it collapse, but because its closer to being a religion simple factual proof that it is wrong will never be enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right .
      The field is approached more like R.A. Fisher analyzing which field in a grid of hybrids has the highest yield , ie : statistical observation in the absence of any overarching theoretical foundation .

      However , the analysis of planetary temperature is totally an issue of non-optional classical physics .

      When one looks for the fundamental enabling quantitative equations for the "trapping" of energy by electromagnetic , ie : spectral , phenomena , one finds they don't exist . Spectral phenomena cannot "trap" energy to a higher density than that input .

      Only gravity , computing as it does as a "negative" energy , can and must and does to compelling accuracy by rather simply derived quantitative equations .

      Yet it is ruled out of order by all trapped in the GHG paradigm .

      Delete
    2. It is trivial to show that Bob Armstrong is wrong and to disprove the hypothesis that gravity accounts for Earth's temperature.

      You only need to look at the Earth's outgoing spectrum at the top of its atmosphere:

      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

      Gravity doesn't predict that spectrum, or explain it in any way. Therefore, the hypothesis is wrong.

      QED

      Delete
  2. It's interesting to note that the "science" is fraught with attempts to manipulate data and then force it to fit a computer modeling of the past climate record. When observations don't match the curve fit, change the data.

    Anyone can see that climate science is not real science.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Page,
    I noticed you felt compelled to truncate a trend segment in the WFT graphic, above, presumably to maintain depiction of a negative trend line. Dr. Svalgaard and other skeptics wouldn't approve. {wags index finger} ;^)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr Svalgaard wouldn't approve because he doesn't understand how to work with complex multi-variable systems and so is always unable to make any useful forecasts. The blue line was drawn to simply to illustrate the working hypothesis that we are on the down trend of a millennial cycle cooling trend. Beyond 2015 the trend is currently obscured by the current short term El Nino.
    When dealing with a thousand year cycle obviously you need to look over longer time scales see:
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-epistemology-of-climate-forecasting.html
    "Grandpa says- I'm glad to see that you have developed an early interest in Epistemology. Remember ,I mentioned the 60 year cycle, well, the data shows that the temperature peak in 2003 was close to a peak in both that cycle and the 1000 year cycle. If we are now entering the downslope of the 1000 year cycle then the next peak in the 60 year cycle at about 2063 should be lower than the 2003 peak and the next 60 year peak after that at about 2123 should be lower again, so, by that time ,if the peak is lower, we will be pretty sure that we are on our way to the next little ice age.

    That is a long time to wait, but we will get some useful clues a long time before that. Look again at the red curve in Fig 3 - you can see that from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2009 solar activity dropped to the lowest it has been for a long time. Remember the 12 year delay between the 1991 solar activity peak and the 2003 temperature trend break. , if there is a similar delay in the response to lower solar activity , earth should see a cold spell from 2019 to 2021 when you will be in Middle School.

    It should also be noticeably cooler at the coolest part of the 60 year cycle - halfway through the present 60 year cycle at about 2033.

    We can watch for these things to happen but meanwhile keep in mind that the overall cyclic trends can be disturbed for a time in some years by the El Nino weather patterns in the Pacific and the associated high temperatures that we see in for example 1998 ,2010 and especially from 2015 on."


    ReplyDelete
  5. You were very wrong in 2012. Have you learned nothing from that?

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/03/them-that-cant-learn-doctor-dr-norman.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. David
    You are being ,shall we charitably say, disingenuous ,in presenting the GISS data as a proof that my 2012 forecast was wrong. You are in fact acting as a propagandist for the Orwellian gate-keepers of the Land /Sea data who have steadily
    manipulated the past to the point that their outputs no longer provide any basis for intelligent discussion of climate.( See also comment 2 to your post). The actual situation shows that my forecast is alive and well in the real world. See Fig at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/24/collapse-of-the-cagw-delusion-untenable-past-2020/
    Obviously the current El Nino peak is a short term interruption of the decadal trend.
    However I am happy and surprised that you agree with me about climate models. You need to draw the logical conclusions which derive from that agreement which again surprisingly the IPCC does but then ignores. Here is what my post said.

    "Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings,feedbacks and climate sensitivity.It recognizes the short comings of the models. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which concludes:

    “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
    What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability (i.e., we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2). This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way.
    Even the IPCC itself has now given up on estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)
    “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”
    Paradoxically they still claim that UNFCCC can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels .This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which proves that CO2 has anything more than a negligible effect on temperatures. "
    As to the thousand year cycle you say "
    "A thousand-year cycle? Based on what? Page doesn't say. Instead he is stuck in the past, not realizing that manmade forcings have changed everything."
    This is entirely false - I presented evidence of the millennial cycle and its peak in 2003 +/- in Figs 3,4,5 and 6.The fact is that man made CO2 emission forcings have changed very little with regard to temperature but have substantially enhanced food production.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Norman, no data support your 2012 claim -- you were as wrong as you could be. And now you're making essentially the same one again.

      Some people never learn.

      Delete
    2. I was once worried about this idea that manipulations by land-sea reconstructions were creating false data, then I did own reconstruction and got the exact same result. In fact it is rather surprising how robust the general trend is, you don't even need many samples or adjustments if you work with a constant subset of temperature stations over a time range.

      Richard Muller went through the same exact experience as many (though, years later, and with a much more professional analysis than my amateur efforts) http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348

      Do you suppose he managed to join the Orwellian forces along with various americans, japanese, and british scientists? Somehow the Koch brothers funding led him to make the same fake manipulations as the rest? How would Ockham's razor apply here?

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Josef Loschmidt (Maxwell's teacher) was the first to realistically determine the size of air molecules - quite a feat in the 19th century. There is no correct peer-reviewed published refutation of his gravito-thermal effect, which is based on and derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that law also never proven incorrect. There's a US $7,500 reward offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com if you or any reader can prove me wrong and produce a study confirming water vapor warms to the extent implied by the IPCC. Furthermore, the Loschmidt effect is now proven empirically in hundreds of 21st century experiments. The existence of this gravitationally induced temperature gradient means the IPCC doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding CO2.

    Hence there is no need for James Hansen's guesswork that radiation from a cold atmosphere must be heating an already-warmer surface, because it is the force of gravity acting on molecules between collisions that produces both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that in Nature there is an autonomous propensity for a system to move towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which state has maximum entropy. However, this state in a force field is NOT isothermal. That is, there exists a non-zero temperature gradient which we can understand and quantify using the Kinetic Theory of Gases.

    This fact, known about by physicists since the 19th century, completely demolishes the greenhouse. Hansen assumed isothermal conditions without GH gases, but that is NOT what the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates will tend to occur. See http://climate-change-theory.com for more detail.

    In the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) in a column of the troposphere the pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.

    Now for the temperatures to be equal when crossing this means that (because molecules gain Kinetic Energy with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular Kinetic Energy (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below. Hence there is a stable equilibrium temperature gradient resulting from the entropy maximization process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The observation of cycles from the past informs us that climate has never been stable. To suggest that the cycles of the past will likely be evident in the future is plausible. However, the system evolves continuously. It has a life.

    The energy available via solar radiation varies little. But, according to the level of cloud albedo the energy absorbed by the oceans to depth, to little effect in changing surface temperature in the ocean itself varies a lot.

    Cloud albedo depends upon the temperature of the air in relation to its dew point. Absolute humidity varies little but the temperature of the air a lot. Its range of variation increases with altitude due to the influence of ozone that absorbs energy at 9-10um that emanates from the Earth itself. https://reality348.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/25-35c2b0s.jpg?w=1496

    The ozone content of the air depends on the zonal wind in high latitudes, a proxy for the the rate of intake of ozone poor NOx rich mesospheric air into the atmosphere at the poles....that gets to be immediately mixed in across the polar vortex per medium of polar cyclone activity that is strongest at 300hPa to 50 hPa, convection and simple migration to lower latitudes. Much more aggressive in Antarctica, hence the ozone deficit in the southern hemisphere.

    The zonal wind depends on the interaction of the solar wind that changes on 200 year time scales and the Earth's magnetic field that we know little about. In fact we don't know a whole lot about either.

    But it appears that a cooling trend has been established: https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/6-the-poverty-of-climatology/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But it appears that a cooling trend has been established: https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/6-the-poverty-of-climatology/"

      Actually all kinds of temperature measurements are setting record highs. The HadSST3 monthly SST has been the warmest in the record for 13 consecutive months.

      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt

      Delete
  10. My 2012 forecast of a cooling trend from 2003 on is looking good with the rapid collapse of the current El Nino. See figs 5 and 5a above.The cooling trends are truncated to exclude the current El Nino as an end point. The Enso events are temporary aberrations which don’t have much influence on the trends – see the 1998 and 2010 events in Figs 5 and 5a.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doctor Norman Page PhD: Your 2012 forecast was as wrong as wrong could be, as I showed here:

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-department-of-oops-case-number-1.html

      Who are you trying to fool, anyway?

      Delete
    2. Norman:

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/05/dr-norman-page-phd-still-batshit-insane.html

      Delete
    3. If we are going to argue that it is sensible to trim ENSO events from the end of the span in order to get the trend line we want, don't you think we should trim the ENSO event at the start of the time span as well?

      Delete
  11. Mr Page,

    RSS has many different data sets available. Which is the data set shown in Fig 5? TLT? Which as of this month looks like https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGbNp0ph7p1s4lyTiMhw2g_yos3sPFeu24W80CrWyos/edit?usp=sharing since 2003?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks to be the RSS data for TLT, but Norman completely cherry picks his trend starting and stopping dates, and ignores considerations of statistical significance.

      Data Source:
      http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

      Page's trend line from 2005 to 2015 is *not* statisticlly significant -- from 1/2005 to 12/2015, I calculate the statistical significance of the (slight warming) linear trend to be only 52%.

      But Norman Page clearly isn't interested in such things....

      Delete
    2. By the way, the trend from 1/2005 to present, 5/2016, is a much larger +0.12 C/decade, and statistically significant at the 99% confidence level.

      So "trimming" ENSOs matters a great deal. There's no scientific justification for it.

      Delete
    3. I mean, yes it is obvious he has picked one of the few data sets that just ignores the poles completely, which is where a lot of the warming happens, and then truncated only the inconvenient ENSO events, and then the data still doesn't really support any notion of a cooling trend since 2003....

      Delete
    4. Norman is a classic case of denialism, which shows it can happen even to PhDs who have some specific science training in their field but are unable to translate that to elsewhere.

      Delete
    5. David Statistical calculations of complex data sets of emergent phenomena have no physical meaning.Their outcomes depend entirely on the start and end points chosen for the time series .They dont provide any useful information.In this case only an idiot would start or end an analysis of a time series near the peak or trough of an
      Enso event.
      I am putting forward what I consider a useful working hypothesis based on some simple observations.
      Figs 3 -6 show that a millennial temperature cycle peaked at about 2003/4.
      Figs 7 -8 show that this peak may well correspond to the millennial solar activity peak at 1991 .The delay is because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
      The establishment make a gross error of scientific judgement by projecting straight ahead beyond the millennial inflection point at about 2003. - See Fig 1
      What is not to like? Y'all are not seeing the wood for the trees.

      Delete
    6. "Figs 3 -6 show that a millennial temperature cycle peaked at about 2003/4."

      Among the years 1880-2015, 2003 ranks as only the 10th warmest, and 2014 the 14th warmest(NOAA data).

      Since then there have been six warmer years.

      Some "inflection point!"

      Delete
  12. "I am putting forward what I consider a useful working hypothesis based on some simple observations."

    Your past hypotheses have been wildly wrong:

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/03/them-that-cant-learn-doctor-dr-norman.html

    You have lost the right to be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The establishment make a gross error of scientific judgement by projecting straight ahead beyond the millennial inflection point at about 2003. - See Fig 1"

    The establishment????

    That was from a paper written by one person.

    How is one person the "establishment," Norman.

    Explain.

    ReplyDelete
  14. All of the IPCC, Met Office and NASA projections and their scary propaganda are based on various versions of the warming trend shown in Fig 1 labelled IPCC prediction. None of them honor the hypothesized inflection point at the millennial temperature peak at about 2004.
    You are certainly free to ignore any working hypothesis or evidence which might make you uncomfortable and question your beliefs and assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why, based on the physics, should there be an "inflection point" at 2004??

      Delete