The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
The New Dark Age Comes for Climate Science
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The anti-science Left has a problem. Despite all their intimidation, sometimes the academic peer-review process works properly. Compelling studies are published even though the challenge aspects of the Left’s worldview. This is exactly what happened recently: A study by Russian scientists in the prestigious journal Scientific Reports suggested that part of the explanation for Climate Change appears to be variation over time in the Earth’s distance from the Sun. [Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale, By V.V. Zharkova et al., Scientific Reports, 2019. The result: An ongoing attempt to rewrite history and send the study down the memory hole.

Nothing frightens the anti-science Left more than the prospect of research that undermines the dogmas of their “Cathedral” gaining respectability because the masses associate it with prestigious institutions. To this end, ideologically-motivated scientists have, in the last few years alone, fired Dr Noah Carl from Cambridge University for his various studies of the correlates of race, had a critical review of an anti-science book on race removed from YouTube for “hate speech” , and corrupted the peer-review process to prevent Italian anthropologist David Piffer from presenting his findings on the genetics of race differences in intelligence in a high impact journal.

However, the Leftist Cathedral has an Achilles heel. There are still enough non-ideological and scrupulous scientists in academia that sometimes—though decreasingly often, as they gradually retire—the peer-review process works as it was designed to. Rather than being corrupted by Social Justice Warrior ideologues, it results in anonymous and unbiased scientists reading through a study, finding that it is carefully conducted and logical, not caring about the fact that it challenges Leftist dogma, and recommending it for publication. And, sometimes, an editor is naïve or courageous enough to publish the study, in his high impact journal.

But, as the Left squeezes the noose ever tighter around science’s neck, they have now come up with an insidious way of solving this problem. They find some very minor fault in the study–or simply disparage it with academic-speak insults such as “simplistic” or “reductionist”–and campaign ferociously for the journal’s publisher to withdraw it. They seemingly hope that this will withdraw “scientific credibility” from the hypotheses logically demonstrated by the disputed paper.

This makes perfect sense to anti-science “scientists,” because they are postmodernists who do not believe in objective truth. Truth can ultimately be reduced to “power” and the public acceptance of their enemy’s “Truth”–implicit in it being published in an influential journal–involves the “empowerment” of their enemy and the “disempowerment” of the “disempowered” group of which believe they are part (or for which they fight to reduce their years in their postmodern Purgatory of the mind).

Last year, I reported the case of mathematician Ted Hill. He wrote a paper which used mathematics to make sense of the “Genetic Male Variability Hypothesis” (“GMVH”—that males tend to be over-represented at the extremes, both high and low, of IQ, hence more male Nobel laureates but also more male vagrants). This study was accepted in the Mathematical Intelligencer and placed online as “pre-published,” meaning it would be officially published in the future issue.

But under pressure from a woke female mathematician, Amie Wilkinson, the journal unpublished the paper. Appalled by this, the editor of another journal, New York Journal of Mathematics, himself published the paper online, but then “sent it down the memory hole” under pressure from the mathematician husband of…Amie Wilkinson.

This would all have been hushed up if Hill had not reported it to the pro-science academic website Quillette because…who really cares about Math papers?

Frustratingly for the Church of Equality, the new object of Leftist rage is about Global Warming, which most people do care about. Hence the furor over the Russian scientists’ study:

The authors suggest that Earth’s 1°C temperature rise over the past two centuries could largely be explained by the distance between Earth and the sun changing over time as the sun orbits around our solar system’s barycentre, its centre of mass. The phenomenon would see temperatures rise a further 3°C by 2600.

[Journal criticised for study claiming sun is causing global warming, by Adam Vaughan, New Scientist, July 16, 2019]

Worse, the was reported—most impertinently without inviting Woke scientists to condemn it—in national newspapers. [Fresh insights into climatic effects of cosmic change, The Australian, July13, 2019] So the questioning cat was out well and truly out of the postmodern bag.

Note carefully: The Russian authors, most of them based at British universities, did not argue that human activity plays absolutely no role in climate change. They simply demonstrated that something else plays a significant part as well.

But “Manmade Climate Change” is more than simply “science.” It is a tool employed by the Left to argue in favor of “Climate Justice,” meaning that the West should reduce its emissions, and standards-of-living, but the rest of the world should not, until living-standards become equal worldwide. And it is a means of making Western people feel guilty for their history of industrialization, pollution, and colonialism and so a method of demoralizing them, such that they accept their own displacement. Climate-change activists are “watermelons”—green outside, red inside.

Accordingly, any study which questions the West’s culpability for climate change may cause people to feel less guilty, to be less inclined to reduce their living standards and, perhaps, to trust the Left rather less, and start questioning other Leftist dogmas as well: the need for mass immigration, even the psychological equality of the races . . .

But somehow this blasphemy had got peer-review and the editor had accepted the peer-reviewers’ recommendations to publish.

(Admittedly, the Russian-English in which the paper is written makes one suspect that this may have been a matter of editorial trust rather than bravery, as one would normally expect English such as the following to be edited to sound more native: “Latest minimum of the baseline oscillations is found to coincide with the grand solar minimum (the Maunder minimum) occurred before the current super-grand cycle start”).

Nevertheless, the result is a campaign to denigrate the study and have it withdrawn. Hence Adam Vaughan [Tweet him] in the New Scientist hit job cited above, scientists were lined up one after the other to magnify minor errors and present emotional manipulative arguments about “credibility”:

  • Ken Rice of the University of Edinburgh, UK, criticised the paper for an “elementary” mistake about celestial mechanics . . . He is urging the journal to withdraw the paper, and says it is embarrassing it was published.
  • Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies says the paper contains egregious errors . . . He says the journal must retract the paper if it wants to retain any credibility.
  • Michael Brown of Monash University in Australia lamented uncritical media coverage of the paper in Australia.

The embattled lead author, Valentina Zharkova, has responded that the errors in her study, to the extent they existed, were minor and did not undermine her thesis.

But even so, the journal has caved in and will “investigate” whether it should withdraw her paper [Journal to investigate controversial study claiming global temperature rise is due to Earth moving closer to Sun, By Harry Cockburn, Independent, July 16, 2019].

In the past, when scientific studies are withdrawn it is due to very serious issues, such as scientific fraud or massive experimental errors that completely undermined the study.

But it appears that if a study might even potentially lead people to question the New Religion then very minor errors—perfectly common and normally dealt with by a correction—is more than enough when combined with righteous Leftist fury.

Where this will end? Will we see decades-old papers on race differences “withdrawn” due to some very minor mistake?

The only hope: more and more of those whom the Left hopes to manipulate will see them for the anti-scientists that they are.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Academia, Global Warming, Political Correctness 
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. What has protected the global population, including those who wish to ignore the role that fossil fuel consumption has played in changing the climate, is the inertia of the climate system. Much like it takes a major effort to get a truck moving down a very gradual slope, once it gets going it is very difficult to stop it.

    The Greenland ice sheet has been losing mass at the rate of (on average) 286 gigatones per year since 2002. I am aware of one – just one – formerly fast retreating glacier in that country which has gone into (temporary) reverse due to colder oceanic waters (caused by, ironically, meltwater run-off from the ice sheet).

    The west Antarctica ice shelves have been physically undermined, much like the buttresses holding up a cathedral wall would be undermined if you demolished them. And once the buttresses go, the walls will go, a fate that awaits West Antarctica, no matter what.

    The author of this piece seems oblivious to self-reinforcing feedback loops, of which there are many, and which IPCC tends to overlook (suggesting their assessments are way too optimistic). A good example is the loss of ice. The more Arctic sea ice is lost, the more heat is absorbed by the earth system. So, the hotter it gets, the faster it gets hotter.

    The Left may be delusional to think electric cars are going to solve the problem, but they are only as deluded as the Right in thinking that humanity has a future beyond (at most) the next few deacdes.

    • Agree: animalogic
  2. Firstly, great summary of the ctrl-left’s political attitude toward science in your article’s 1st half, Mr. Welton. Everything becomes political to these people. Something tells me that a modern scientist with a left-wing bent will let his politics override his scientific integrity. In the meantime, for everyone else, it’s about getting to the truth, for the joy of doing that.

    On the paper itself, I’m about 1/3-way through, and though I don’t know the magnetic field physics part, I do know some astronomy. Here’s my 1st thought. (I’ve read only the 1st 3rd, but skimmed the rest.)

    This is 2 papers in one. The paper’s title only reflects the 1st study, that of the magnetic fields of the sun, their relation to sunspots (used to predict solar output), and the short-term solar output cycles due to these movements of the magnetic fields.

    The 2nd topic, the one getting the Global Climate Disruption(TM) priests all upset, is on this revolution of the sun around the solar system center of mass (changing position as planets move). This 2nd half of this paper is where the astronomical calculations are done – to me, most of it easy to follow – that predict multi-century-long term cycles of solar radiative energy received by the earth. The normal seasonal changes (with the additional factor of the change in the Earth’s axis tilt from the solar plane) are looked at in concert with the centuries-long cycles to predict temperature changes on Earth in the 2 hemispheres.

    I’m not sure why they wouldn’t have broken this out into 2 papers, unless it was to hide the, gasp!, blasphemous 2nd half under the title and more boring (to me, anyway) 1st half on the complicated solar magnetic fields.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  3. Just on the nitpicky stuff here:

    I do wonder why there is a lack of appropriate (part-of-speech) articles, even in the title. One would think that “Solar Magnetic Field” should have a “the” before it, but I am a layman. Perhaps “Solar Magnetic Field” is thought of as a quantity (albeit, a complicated 3-dimensional array) rather than just a concept. In that case, it doesn’t need an article. As much as Russians and that sort love to write on the internet in this slightly-broken fashion for authenticity (IMO), there’s no call for that in a published scientific paper.

    I LUV LUV LUV these guys’ use of BC (in their recounting of the Maunder minimums of the past), rather than the stupid, PC term, “BCE”. Kudos, Russkies, on that!

    The astronomy in this paper is pretty easy. Has the motion of the sun’s mass around the SS barycenter not been discussed in the past? (I would sure hope so.) If so, it’s taken a long time to get to the step of noting the changes in Solar radiation due to this factor, especially because the Maunder minimums have been known about for a long time. Maybe, it’s because there’s no money in it … Let’s get political, political…

    • Replies: @anon
  4. Vinnie O says:

    Have you simply been hiding under a rock? Go read ANYTHING at ClimateDepot.com. The Warmists lost the SCIENCE war several years back. The current rearguard actions are to see whether the Warmists can still squeeze ANY money out of governments, most especially the super-rich American government.

    Read ANYTHING about the Medieval “Long Summer”. Circa 1000 AD, the Vikings started DAIRY FARMS on the defrosted coast of Greenland. The remains of those farms are still there. It’s that they’re under 100 feet of ICE.

    Also, CLOUDS (normal everyday water-droplet clouds) have MUCH more effect on Earth’s weather than CO2 concentrations do. And CO2 is PLANT FOOD. There has been a HUGE increase in TEMPERATE forests since the 1970s. And of course, forests (and all of humanity) benefit from warmer weather. Temperate forests in North America and Siberia produce SIGNIFICANTLY more O2 (from CO2) than do the TROPICAL rain forests. Think Seattle here, but right on down to northern California.

    The best predictor of world weather is Sunspots, over which humans (most especially money-grubbing Socialists) have no control. The cycles last about 7 years each (I think). There is absolutely NOTHING that humans can change about these cycles other than accept them and recognize them as NORMAL. The “computer models” that the Warmists are selling do NOT include ANY adjustments for sunspots, just one of the MANY fundamental errors in their models.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @anon
  5. lavoisier says: • Website

    It is sometimes wise to acknowledge that rationality and critical thinking are rare qualities in the human population.

    Most people believe what they want to believe regardless of logic or facts.

    Science works as a system when it has structures in place to curtail human irrationality, prejudice in the real sense of the word, and false conviction.

    If these structures are destroyed, science is also destroyed as human irrationality and bias will limit what can be investigated and what can be discussed.

    For example, most of the field of anthropology today is essentially useless in advancing knowledge because of the conviction that race is a social construct without a genetic basis. Any new data or idea that goes against this conviction will not receive a fair assessment and therefore cannot be used to advance the field.

    Stephen Jay Gould lived his life as an example of someone without respect for the scientific process, and his bias helped to lay the foundation for the current foolishness with Angela Saini.

    • Replies: @anon
  6. @Vinnie O

    Your 3rd paragraph, Vinnie, on the effect of cloud cover, brought up in my mind a point I’ve been trying to make for years and in many blog posts*. There are many, many physical processes that are a part of how the Earth’s climate works. Sure, that “greenhouse effect” is a simple one, and, yes, WE GET THAT longer-wavelength radiation gets absorbed by water and CO2 molecules, etc. That’s just one part of a big, complicated picture.

    I don’t mind that there are scientific studies galore and scientists in disagreement – and they sometimes get LOUD about it. What I don’t like is anyone’s stupid pretensions that he’s got a full working mathematical model of the entire world’s climate. Bullshit.

    .

    * See “There is no working mathematical model of the world’s climate, dammit!”Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5, with Summary, Part 1 and Part 2.

    On the politics, Peak Stupidity has 5 posts:
    Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

    • Replies: @Vinnie O
    , @anon
  7. Here’s an idea. How about we leave the contested articles out there, but merely add the objections as, say, comments?

    It might be educational to see how people make mistakes and how other people zero in on them.

    It might also be educational to see how some people love to blow up a trivial mistake into a crime against science.

    Since science is now all published as bits and bytes, I think we can deal with the idea that there might be a ton of stuff that is a little less than a perfect Athena sprung out of the head of Zeus.

  8. But under pressure from a woke female mathematician, Amie Wilkinson, the journal unpublished the paper. Appalled by this, the editor of another journal, New York Journal of Mathematics, himself published the paper online, but then “sent it down the memory hole” under pressure from the mathematician husband of … Amie Wilkinson.

    Dammit! Can’t that Mr. Wilkinson control his woman!

    But “Manmade Climate Change” is more than simply “science.” It is a tool employed by the Left to argue in favor of “Climate Justice,” meaning that the West should reduce its emissions, and standards-of-living, but the rest of the world should not, until living-standards become equal worldwide.

    Bingo. That’s how you know for a fact that this global-warming hysteria is fake: all of the ‘solutions’ proposed for it by the media and the government have nothing to do with the environment at all, but rather with enriching the big banks (‘cap and trade’) and global corporations (off-shoring). Notice that none of them ever suggests anything practical, like inventing something affordable to replace the internal combustion engine. No, no! Why not just erect a one-world state instead? Won’t that solve the problem? 😀

    • Replies: @anon
  9. @Tsar Nicholas

    Strictly speaking, the paper referenced above by the author doesn’t deny that temperatures are rising; it simply proposes a different explanation for this.

    But since you raised the subject of melting icebergs, I feel compelled to ask: Just where in the hell is all this water going? I mean, it has to go somewhere, right? So where does it end up?

    I remember nearly thirty years ago when this Global Warming theory hit. Back then, they were telling us that the two polar ice caps were going to melt and that much of our dry land would disappear, swallowed up by the rising sea-levels. Well, here we are decades later and none of that has happened. New York and San Francisco are still there–hell, so’s Bangladesh! As a matter of fact, we have not yet (as far as I’m aware) lost so much as a single Pacific atoll. The atolls are only a few feet above sea-level. They should be the first to go, right?

    So what gives? Where’s is all this surplus water going?

    • Replies: @HallParvey
    , @anon
    , @anon
  10. Vinnie O says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Achmed, baby,

    way back in 1972 or so I took a course in “Meteorology” or some such. As part of that course, the professor described “weather models” for the whole world. The standard start for these models (in 1970) was to divide the surface of the Earth into 400 miles squares and then AVERAGE the terrain under them. So, for example, the ENTIRE archipelago of the Japan AVERAGED out to “open ocean”. I was amazed to read only a year or 2 back that the CURRENT weather (and climate change) models STILL use the old 400 mile squares with AVERAGED terrain. The accuracy of all such models is of course “damn poor”, to use a technical term.

    Also note that the ENTIRE field of Chaos Theory arose from a weather prediction program being developed back in the ’60s. They would enter a whole buncha temperature and humidity and pressure data and hit the RUN button on some monstrous IBM main frame. They tinkered with the formulae until it looked like they were getting consistent results. But then one afternoon some of the Government guys came over for a meeting and the boss fella wanted a fresh copy of the printout to show off. So the programmer dude decided that he would just type in a line of output from the middle of the last run, expecting to get an exact copy of the end of the last run.

    Nope. The programmer watched in horror as each new output line varied just a TEENY bit from the full run until the final line was ENTIRELY different.

    And from this discovery, Serendipity-wise, they invented Chaos Theory: systems that are CRITICALLY dependent on INITIAL conditions. In most Chaotic Systems (e.g., Weather & Climate), the chance of rain in Chicago really does depend on the flapping of a butterfly’s wing in Manchuria. And we puny humans still can’t identify one tenth of the cute little datums needed to produce a useful, and chaotic, model of Weather.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @anon
  11. alexander says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    Good points.

    But let’s not forget past Ice ages…where what is Manhattan Island now, would have been covered in a mile and a half of solid ice .

    You cannot escape the fact that, over time, the earth , the sun, the moon and the universe will do their own thing…regardless of what we may do…and there is not all that much we have to say in the matter.

    I do believe the less we pollute the earth, the better it will be for everyone and everything on it, regardless of whether the sun is causing a rise in the earths temperature or it is excessive carbon emissions.

    Cleaning up our air , water and land…and keeping it clean…is the very best of ideas, no matter where we end up finding the culprits of climate change.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @anon
  12. Has the motion of the sun’s mass around the SS barycenter not been discussed in the past? (I would sure hope so.)

    Yes, how come this – at least in the global warming-context – sounds so new?

    Anybody out there to explain?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  13. Truth can ultimately be reduced to “power” and the public acceptance of their enemy’s “Truth”–implicit in it being published in an influential journal–involves the “empowerment” of their enemy and the “disempowerment” of the “disempowered” group of which believe they are part (or for which they fight to reduce their years in their postmodern Purgatory of the mind).

    The so-called left has gone full Heideggerian. It’s the feeling of authenticity that counts for more than actuality.

  14. Patricus says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    If just a few decades remain for us we must be beyond the point of no return. So why change anything? We could stock up on beer and enjoy the catastrophe.

    Just how do we know catastrophe is upon us? It felt kind of warm last week so I guess the end may be near. Today the weather is pretty normal. Confusing for this deplorable.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @anon
  15. “it is a means of making Western people feel guilty for their history of industrialization, pollution, and colonialism”

    A history that was created by wealthy Jewish corporate owners, financiers, industrialists, and colonists.

  16. @Dieter Kief

    Besides being dominated by the huge mass of the sun, Dieter, it’s just the 4 gas giants with their big masses, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, that would be a factor in the position of the Solar System center-of-mass. Calculations of the position could have been made even before computers were available, but now it’d be a trivial calculation.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    , @anon
  17. @alexander

    Cleaning up our air , water and land…and keeping it clean…is the very best of ideas, no matter where we end up finding the culprits of climate change.

    Right, but Carbon Dioxide is not BY ANY DEFINITION a pollutant! I believe the sky-is-falling-types use the word “pollutant” and “emissions” to scare people that know absolutely no chemistry, to confuse it with Carbon Monoxide, which IS a poisonous gas.

  18. When I encounter too many grammatical errors in an article, I get the sense of a breathless writer, rushing to notify the world of some trivial and quite possibly erroneous observation or belief. Example: “Hence Adam Vaughan [Tweet him] in the New Scientist hit job cited above, scientists were lined up one after the other to magnify minor errors …”

    In this case, it appears Welton was triggered by the New Scientist article. But that article doesn’t appear to deserve the excitement. It observes that “A high profile scientific journal is investigating how it came to publish a study suggesting that global warming is down to natural solar cycles. … Scientific Reports says it has begun an ‘established process’ to investigate the paper.” One would think that the time to attack would be after the investigators reach a palpably biased conclusion — which they may not do.

    Welton seems to believe that the experts quoted by New Scientist are ideologically corrupted. But I don’t see any explanation of why, say, Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute deserves this. Is NASA now considered part of “the anti-science Left”? If so, why? As far as I can tell, Welton thinks I should just take his word for it. That doesn’t sound like science.

  19. 1- I didn’t find any evidence that Amie Wilkinson is a leftist or that she has any strong political motivation. Second, she gave an answer about this paper who wasn’t published which should have been considered by LW (link bellow).

    2- Publishing an academic paper may be a very complicated matter. Even people who are very competent may complain about the whole process. So, if someone had difficulties publishing a paper, this is not uncommon. The paper was criticized by some people who are quite known and who say that it has serious mistakes – I have to assume that they are right. If what the paper says is correct, it might change a scientific consensus that was built over a quite long time, that has a solid scientific fundament in basic science which is very old. It wasn’t invented by Lenin or by Stalin or by Fidel Castro. People who challenge such theories should be prepared to face difficulties, even if they are right. If they are wrong, they may be only fools.

    3- Everybody knows that we must reduce very fast our CO2 emissions to 0 (zero). So, every country must reduce them and not only rich countries. Contrary to what LW thinks, the question is not one of lowering living standards but of lowering CO2 emissions which are very different things. The conservative government of the UK has decided to lower them to 0 very soon. I don’t think that the left has a special position about that. It’s only a question of common sense. There are also a lot of leftists who reject the whole thing about global warming. So, it seems to be a kind of madness or ignorance which affects all kind of people.

    4- I’m not familiar with this “Genetic Male Variability Hypothesis” and I’m not an expert who could judge about its soundness, but it seems to me possible that it’s in fact very questionable and that it might be easily debunked.

    https://boffosocko.com/2018/09/11/statement-by-amie-wilkinson-addressing-unfounded-allegations-amie-wilkinson/

    • Replies: @A.R.
  20. @Achmed E. Newman

    Carbon Dioxide is not BY ANY DEFINITION a pollutant!

    Right, but isn’t it the case that when you burn fossil fuels you produce a lot of particles which are pollutant? So, if you reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by not burning fossil fuels, aren’t you at the same time reducing air pollution?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  21. alexander says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes, I get your point.

    But lets take one issue, with which we can all pretty much agree. The survival of the Brazilian Rain Forest .

    Right now, under Bolsonaro, the greedy corporate oligarchs have successfully relaunched their efforts to holocaust the forest .

    In record time, it will be exterminated……perhaps, forever.

    This is a total disgrace to the world, and it doesn’t have to happen.

    When federal legislation unlocked the door to HEMP last year, it gave the world access to the cheapest, smartest, most sustainable form of paper production there is.

    Hemp is not only one of the fastest growing plants, it will grow well, in virtually any conditions.

    I say we end, right now, the annihilation of both the ” Brazilian rain forest” and our “old growth forests”.

    Let these “natural wonders” do what they do BEST…pump fresh clean oxygen into the atmosphere and stabilize our environment.

    If Bolsonaro continues to eviscerate the rain forest, he should be arrested and incarcerated .

    Our Industry leaders should turn to “easy to grow” sustainable Hemp bast as their go-to source for paper products.

    This is not just smart, it is decades overdue.

    Call or email your congressman today…and tell them to put a STOP to the HOLOCAUST of the BRAZILIAN RAIN FOREST….Right NOW !

  22. @Achmed E. Newman

    That looks like the easy part in my laymen’s eyes (I’m willing to follow whomever is peer reviewed in such fields, especially in such cases as yours hre, where the hypothesis looks reasonable at first glance).

    What’s hard for me to grab is, that the wobbling course of the sun – assumed all calculations were correct, – did not play a significant role in the climate-change discourse.

    Any ideas why this is the case?

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
    , @anon
  23. @Dieter Kief

    What’s hard for me to grab is, that the wobbling course of the sun – assumed all calculations were correct, – did not play a significant role in the climate-change discourse.

    Any ideas why this is the case?

    Because it doesn’t play any role in climate change. Of course scientists thought about that and concluded that the Sun is not the cause of global warming.

  24. alexander says:

    Thank you for an excellent and highly informative article, Mr. Welton.

    Please keep them coming.

  25. @UncommonGround

    Nope, that’s not the case. The two natural products of complete stoichiometric (meaning a reaction that uses the “ingredients” in the right proportions) combustion of hydrocarbons is water and carbon dioxide. Hydrocarbons, as you would guess, have hydrogen and carbon atoms. The hydrogen atoms combine with O2 of the air to make the H2O while the carbons combine with the O2 of the air to make the CO2. Air is 78% or so nitrogen. If the reaction is not done right (bad mixture or wrong temperature) then some of the nitrogen of the air gets into reactions, producing true pollutants, the various nitrogen oxides (NOx’s).

    Particulate pollution is different, by definition, as it means particle matter, not gases. I don’t know all the chemistry behind it, other than there’s unburned carbon involved, but particulates (along with the NOx’s) are WAY WAY down due to vehicle and power plant emissions controls.

    A real pollutant is either poisonous to breath or hurts some part of the environment directly (say acid rain, or oil in the lakes).

    It’s a wonder (NOT!) that you never hear about the water vapor being a much bigger greenhouse-effect gas than CO2, even though water is the product from every combustion reaction too.

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
  26. @Achmed E. Newman

    particulates (along with the NOx’s) are WAY WAY down due to vehicle and power plant emissions controls.

    This is really good news. You should tell this to Europeans. In many countries and cities in Europe you are not allowed to drive older diesel cars because of the polution that they cause. Many cities in Germany forbid that you drive such cars there. The result is that many cars which are relatively new have lost their value and are being sold to people in other countries where there aren’t yet such restrictions. People in Germany have lost a lot of money because of that. Many people complain that they don’t have money to buy new cars. The problem is that some people have been saying that cars which use other fuels are also poluting. They are saying that air in cities is poluted because of cars. But now with your news, everything could change.

    Thanks for your remark concerning water vapour. As you didn’t relate it directly to what I said and explained why it’s relevant, I don’t have any idea what’s your point and what you want to say.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  27. @UncommonGround

    The diesel rules are about sulfur content. That’s the reason diesel is higher than gasoline in price now in the US, when it used to be cheaper. I don’t make these rules, just like I don’t know what these Euro rules are. That is about controlling REAL pollution, though, as you and lots of us are concerned about. It you are saying they are going too far over there, then California resembles that point. There are points of diminishing returns.

    Water vapor is a product of combustion, one of the 2. It is much more of a greenhouse-effect gas than carbon dioxide. It’s relevant to the Global Climate Disruption(TM) discussion, which is the discussion in this post. Water is not pollution either, so why call CO2 pollution? You’re not from around here, are you?

    • Replies: @anon
  28. @Vinnie O

    I meant to reply to you yesterday, Vinnie. You are right that weather forecasting is just guesswork outside of a pretty tight time-frame. In some places and times of year, meteorologists can give decent estimates 3 and even 4 days out. In aviation weather, they go out 30 hours, but when it comes to air mass thunderstorms (the types that just pop up and are not associated with a front), if it’s not already on radar heading a certain direction, then they don’t know squat.

    Any forecast for the next 10 days is no better than the Farmer’s Almanac. As you explained well, it’s that chaos theory.

    That said, I will give the Climate-worriers their point that weather is not climate*. The long term general conditions are due to long-term changes in energy input from the sun, radiation back outwards, and maybe some internal generation of energy from the inside. Then, when you get to the details of change in the whole climate, oh man! You’ve got cloud cover and associated albedos, accumulation of energy in various forms in the vast oceans, ocean currents, El Ninos, many different layers of the atmosphere of various components, changes in land cover. It’s not something that there’s any working model of. I’ve asked the same things though: What is the normal climate? What are your initial conditions? How big are your cells or elements in your model? etc, etc.

    .

    * Of course, that goes both ways. You’ve got your goofballs like Fred Reed telling us that his latest freak hailstorm in Guadalajara is due to “Climate Change”, along with plenty of the pop-scientists saying this sort of thing. “Climate is not weather” is something you hear from on the nice days. Then, during cold days in the winter, hot days in the summer, and when hurricanes come ashore, you don’t seem to hear that phrase.

    • Replies: @HallParvey
    , @anon
  29. Svevlad says:

    Give me a big meat grinder and some good boys and I’ll fix the problem feet-first. After all, there’s no objective truth, only power, so it’s a hoist by their own petard moment anyway and therefore legitimate.

    The spread of genetic defects is easy to stop and can be done so humanely. But mental-ideological pollution is hard to correct and spreads much faster…

    • Replies: @anon
  30. astro3 says:

    Wait till the end of this year, see if the new sunspot cycle has begun or not. The Sun is totally quiet now whereas it should have begun the new cycle. Recent cycles have been of diminishing size: a no-sunspot ‘quiet sun’ (think: Maunder minimum in the 17th century: quiet sun, mini ice-age) could spell an era of global cooling.
    Long-term variations in Earth-Sun distance are far too slow to be here of relevance.

    • Replies: @anon
  31. I am NOT a climate scientist. In fact, I do not even possess a college degree. I am a 68
    year-old retired industrial electrician, who worked in that capacity for over 40 years. Personally, I do NOT believe that there is anything to this “global warming” or “human-caused” climate change.

    Many years ago, there was a weekly news magazine that had the depiction of the earth on
    the front cover of the magazine and the earth being depicted as being partially covered
    with ICE. The text which went along with this image said “Ice Age Coming!” (or something to that effect).

    Back then, it was “global cooling;” now, it’s “global warming.” I really believe that this whole climate change “thing” is nothing more than a ploy for politicians (of BOTH national political parties) to TAX everyone and every thing.

    It is just one more way that the “elite,” or “the cabal” (whichever term you prefer) is trying to get EVERYTHING for themselves and to subject the rest of the world’s population in economic and political ENSLAVEMENT.

    Thank you.

    (signed)

    Bradley R. Anbro

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  32. @Digital Samizdat

    They lied. Simple as that.

    Actually, the continents are slowly eroding and sinking into the oceans caused largely by wave action along the coasts. (Slowly means in geologic time, not next week)

    Not to worry. Plate techtonics will push up new mountains and save Gaia.

    • Replies: @anon
  33. @Achmed E. Newman

    That said, I will give the Climate-worriers their point that weather is not climate*. The long term general conditions are due to long-term changes in energy input from the sun, radiation back outwards, and maybe some internal generation of energy from the inside. Then, when you get to the details of change in the whole climate, oh man! You’ve got cloud cover and associated albedos, accumulation of energy in various forms in the vast oceans, ocean currents, El Ninos, many different layers of the atmosphere of various components, changes in land cover. It’s not something that there’s any working model of. I’ve asked the same things though: What is the normal climate? What are your initial conditions? How big are your cells or elements in your model? etc, etc.

    It’s highly probable that the climate has many negative feedback loops that maintain the climate as it is.

    For example, increased water vapor leads to greater light reflection from increased cloud cover cancelling out the greater greenhouse tendency of increased atmospheric water vapor.

    Otherwise there would already have been some runaway climate event that would have resulted in some other stable atmospheric situation. That would have been the effect of any positive feedback loop.

  34. Bork says:

    If you watched the youtube video presentation of this paper you would know that the important part of this theory are the sunspot cycles which are driven by two internal solar cycles with different length. Lots of sunspots -> lots of solar wind -> less cosmic radiation hitting earths atmosphere -> less cloud formation -> earth heats up. The distance from the solar system centre only covers a minor variation.

    You have to realize that western organisations like NASA, MIT, Berkeley, Oxford etc are compromised by globohomo agents and collabrators. Havent you learned anything from the James Watson is right but he is a racist episode? The only way to fix this is to purge pol pot style.

    • Replies: @anon
  35. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > Everything becomes political to these people.

    Best example of psychological projection ever.

  36. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Brad Anbro

    > a weekly news magazine

    Correct. Not a science journal. You’ve never even read a science journal, have you?

    The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

    What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

  37. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @astro3

    > Maunder minimum in the 17th century: quiet sun, mini ice-age) could spell an era of global cooling.

    Wrong.

    Climate Myth: A grand solar minimum could trigger another ice age
    Science Fact: Peer-reviewed research, physics, and math all tell us that a grand solar minimum would have no more than a 0.3°C cooling effect, barely enough to put a dent in human-caused global warming.
    https://skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-mini-ice-age.htm

  38. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @HallParvey

    > They lied. Simple as that.

    You’re projecting your own proclivity to lie. Simple as that, liar.


    Chart source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    • Replies: @HallParvey
  39. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > due to long-term changes in energy input from the sun

    Wrong. That hypothesis has been considered and proven inadequate to explain the facts, as this chart shows:

    Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    > It’s not something that there’s any working model of.

    Incorrect. Even the early climate models from 1981 are pretty accurate in prediction, example:

    Source: Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

    > You’ve got your goofballs

    Obviously, as evidenced from your blunders above, you’re psychologically projecting.

  40. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > Water vapor….It is much more of a greenhouse-effect gas than carbon dioxide.

    Climate Myth — Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

    Just a question, Achmed, do you science-deniers go over to SkepticalScience.com and find climate myths to parrot? Or do you get them from some other central command location? I’m just amazed at at how you and others here parrot the same climate myths nearly word for word. Here’s another example of your robotic programming:

    > why call CO2 pollution

    Climate Myth — CO2 is not a pollutant
    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

    You science-deniers are like NPCs squawking the same programming. Did they put a chip in your head with an antenna to that Big Tobacco/Big Oil PR firm that works for both groups, trying to smear science?

  41. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > Carbon Dioxide is not BY ANY DEFINITION a pollutant!

    If you use all caps, can you overturn hard science?

    While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect.

    Is CO2 a pollutant?
    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

    And then you contradict yourself, and agree with the above definition of CO2 as a pollutant!

    Achmed [Comment #25, August 5, 2019 at 4:32 pm]: “A real pollutant is either poisonous to breath or hurts some part of the environment directly (say acid rain…”

    Yes! That is why CO2 is a pollutant! It mixes with sea-water, creating carbonic acid, and lowers the pH of the ocean, often called acidification, which is poisoning invertebrate marine life that employ calcium carbonate and killing them. See more here: https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

  42. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Patricus

    Actually, it felt the warmest ever in human history on our increasingly hot globe in July 2019. But beyond muh feelz, do you know how to objectively measure temperature with a thermometer? Scientists do, record it, and this is the record:


    Source: Another exceptional month for global average temperatures
    Copernicus Climate Change Service | ECMWF | 5th August 2019
    https://climate.copernicus.eu/another-exceptional-month-global-average-temperatures

  43. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinnie O

    If you actually took a freshman course of “meteorology or some such,” (was the syllabus blurry or were you drunk?) then you must not have paid much attention in class, as you are misrepresenting Chaos Theory as it applies to climate.

    Climate Denial Myth: Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Science says: Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth’s energy imbalance, which is more predictable.
    https://skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted.htm

  44. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    > That’s how you know for a fact

    Unfortunately, you’ve just admitted you haven’t a clue how science works. Sadly, you think your conspiracy theory about the politically powerful can somehow overturn scientific evidence. So here’s your sign…

  45. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > There is no working mathematical model of the world’s climate

    That is a often-parroted science-denier myth. Or in your own terminology, bullshit. There are good models of climate change, and they are this accurate:

    Source: Climate Denier Myth — Models are unreliable
    https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

  46. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @lavoisier

    What is rare with you is to actually discuss climate science.

    Paragraphs: 6
    Sentences addressing climate: 0

    You’re a shill painting with the broad brush “junk science” accusations, which was a Big Tobacco tactic now employed by science deniers.

    Big Tobacco spent $100,000 setting up the Restoring Integrity to Science Coalition “to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of ‘junk science’.”

    How tobacco shills inspired climate denial
    https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/17/how-tobacco-shills-inspired-climate-denial

  47. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinnie O

    I just have to wonder how you all repeat word for word the same climate lies, for example: CO2 is PLANT FOOD.

    Climate Denial Myth: CO2 is Plant Food
    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

    Are you going over to SkepticalScience.com and just repeating all the climate myths word for word? Is that fun? Or do you have an NPC chip in your head with an antenna tuned to Billionaires’ Oil PR firms? Hmm?

    Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement: Nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/

  48. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > a lack of appropriate (part-of-speech) articles, even in the title…Russians and that sort love to write on the internet in this slightly-broken fashion…

    So, in other words, the paper seems less scientific and more like an effort to troll. Truly something worthy of investigation, per your own doubts.

    > the stupid, PC term, “BCE”

    Usage is originally attributed to the astronomer Johannes Kepler. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#Origins

    Why are you always trying to make everything political? Jeeesh!

  49. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bork

    > Lots of sunspots -> […] -> earth heats up.

    Except there is this little thing called reality, when earth heats up with fewer sunspots, like has happened for the last 50 years, as shown in this chart:

    > cosmic radiation…cloud formation

    More climate myth bullshit that has been long disproven that these guys are trying to revive like a golem.

    Climate Myth: CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
    https://skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming.htm

  50. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

    > But “Manmade Climate Change” is more than simply “science.” It is a tool employed by the Left to argue in favor of “Climate Justice”

    One could also say: “But E=MC^2 is more than simple science. It is a tool employed by the State to make nuclear weapons.”

    Unfortunately, because science can be misused for things you don’t like, doesn’t mean the science itself is invalid.

  51. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @alexander

    We all know climate has changed before. Your excuse-making is a variation of the #1 myth employed by climate change deniers trying to weasel out of the fact that humans are now the primary driver of climate change.


    https://skepticalscience.com/

    Do you really imagine that evaporating earths vast coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere is somehow free of consequences?

  52. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    > Pacific atoll…should be the first to go, right?

    True. Already happening in Tuvalu.

    There are observable changes that have occurred over the last ten to fifteen years that show Tuvaluans that there have been changes to sea levels.[40] Those observable changes include sea water bubbling up through the porous coral rock to form pools on each high tide and flooding of low-lying areas including the airport on a regular basis during spring tides and king tides.[41][42][43]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Tuvalu


    Above: the Avanitele family home faces the runway with it’s back to a road, popular playing fields and courts.

  53. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

    > Climate-change activists are “watermelons”—green outside, red inside.

    Oh, so the Trump Administration has gone full Commie!

    The Trump Administration Forecasts 7 Degrees Fahrenheit of Global Warming by 2100
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a23516268/trump-nhtsa-global-warming-2100/

    And the Trump Administration is publicly promoting benefits of global warming.

    “Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade,” he continued. “This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days.”

    “Arctic sea lanes could become the 21st century Suez and Panama Canals,” Pompeo remarked.

    Pompeo: Melting sea ice presents ‘new opportunities for trade’
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/06/politics/pompeo-sea-ice-arctic-council/index.html

  54. @anon

    Wow. A sea level increase of 240 millimeters in the last 129 years. I am impressed. When you think that the earth diameter at the equator is, roughly, 12.76 billion millimeters, the ability to measure that increase is impressive, when tides and other outside effects are considered. That is one part in 5.3 million. I suppose scientists use satellite measurements for accuracy.

    That still doesn’t rule out continental erosion as the source of the increase. Any piece of rock or dirt or Saharan sand falling into the ocean will result in a general raising of the oceanic level. Indeed, all those steel ships carrying trillions of Chinese products to the United States must have had some effect. The more ships, the more the ocean level rises.

    We know that all scientists are paragons of integrity and would never sell out their commitment to science for mere money. And they all agree on everything. It’s called consensus by some. Others have other names for it.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  55. lizzie dw says:

    IMO, there are enough scientific studies out there to disprove global warming and prove global cooling. As is said, “it’s not CO2; it’s not you; it’s the sun”. From everything I have read, it is also very complicated, having to do with the diminishment of solar flares and solar spots, the distance variations in the earth’s rotation around the sun, the position of other planets in relation to earth and the sun, the diminishment of the magnetic shield the sun provides when it has many solar flares and spots, that diminishment allowing in more cosmic rays, which help form more clouds, which also contribute to global cooling. The cosmic rays also (I am not sure how) encourage volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. The volcanic ash floating around the earth also contributes to global cooling. It is a cycle which has been repeated many times in the history of our world. There seems to be no reason why the cycles will not continue. Just to add to the confusion, there are many yearly cycles, including but not limited to 11 year cycles, 22 year cycles, 250 year cycles, 100,000 year cycles! I think there are financial advisors which predict stock market behaviour depending on these cycles! It is really interesting but also relieves us of a lot of responsibility. We all exhale carbon dioxide so if we want “O” CO2 emissions we have to stop breathing. Hmmm. And don’t trees USE CO2 as part of their own growing cycle and as a byproduct emit oxygen? Photosynthesis. IMO, there’s lot of room for discussion of these facts but IMO, they are facts.

    • Replies: @anon
  56. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @HallParvey

    > That still doesn’t rule out continental erosion as the source of the increase.

    What evidence do you have of your claim? That’s how science works: evidence. It’s hard work. You don’t get to spout bullshit while setting in your easy chair like you’re trying now.

    > We know that all scientists are paragons of integrity and would never sell out their commitment to science for mere money.

    That’s not true. The climate denialist sicentists sell out all the time.

    Roy Spencer was among individuals listed as creditors in Peabody Energy’s 2016 bankruptcy filings…
    https://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

    • Replies: @HallParvey
  57. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @lizzie dw

    > there are enough scientific studies out there to disprove global warming

    Where? Up your ass? The rest of your comment is a Gish Gallop through the shitpile of Denialist ‘arguments’ found here, conveniently listed by popularity: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

  58. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @HallParvey

    > The more ships, the more the ocean level rises.

    Now THAT is an interesting hypothesis. Could you expand on the math behind your assertion, especially contrasting global shipping tonnage, which shows how much water is displaced by ships, with how much water melted last month?

    Greenland Lost 217 Billion Tons of Ice Last Month
    https://www.livescience.com/66082-greenland-dumped-197-billion-tons-of-ice.html

    Now my best back of the envelope estimate puts global shipping displacement (2B tons) as equivalent to 0.3 day of Greenland ice cap melt last month (210B tons/mo = 7B tons/day). But your intellect is so much higher than mine, and I want to know the figures over which you’ve pored to make such a bold assertion.

  59. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svevlad

    I’m your meat grinder, you cowardly asshole. I show up, and the halfwit deniers like you are too embarrassed to make another comment; your’re shaking in your shoes and hiding like the intellectual pantywaists that you all know you are. Especially that bellowing windbag Achmed, who still can’t reckon what melts ice.

    What is it that melts ice on a global scale? Anybody familiar with first grade science?

  60. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

    From the-dumb-cunt-who-can’t-do-the-math‘s “Conclusions:”

    “Furthermore, the substantial temperature decreases are expected during the two grand minima to occur in 2020–2055…”
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

    Got that? Substantial temperature decreases are expected to occur in 2020-2055, as predicted by the-dumb-cunt-who-can’t-do-the-math.

    “Substantial temperature decreases” will NOT happen as stupid girl predicts. I can guarantee they will NOT happen as stupid girl predicts, because of the evidence presented in comment #37.

    Now, I’m going to make my own predictions. They’re not scientific predictions, but my own personal predictions based on decades of watching climate-change-denier behavior. My predictions are as follows:

    P R E D I C T I O N S

    (1) I predict “LANCE WELTON” will send stupid girl’s prediction about significant cooling expected to start in 2020 down the memory hole when her prediction fails miserably.

    (2) I predict the “grand solar minimum” fruitcakes like “LANCE WELTON,” nearing the end of Cycle 25, after all their end-of-cycle-24 predictions have failed, will start predicting the same moronic bullshit about another grand solar minimum, with their repeatedly failed predictions’ dating shifted by roughly 11 years.

    Anybody want to take bets?

    • Replies: @anon
  61. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    I’m going to add a third prediction:

    (3) Opposite of stupid-girl’s prediction of “significant cooling,” I predict accelerated global warming, with consequences of that warming impacting humanity faster-than-expected.

    Because the consequences of evaporating earth’s coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere are already impacting our lives faster-than-expected. “Faster-than-expected” is a term that has cropped up in the scientific literature in the last ten years to describe climate change and its consequences. Go do a scholar.google search and see for yourself:

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=”faster+than+expected”+”climate+change”

    Some observant fellow even made a website/blog using the term.

    http://www.fasterthanexpected.com/blog/
    https://www.fasterthanexpected.one/

    Again, anyone want to take bets?

  62. @anon

    > That still doesn’t rule out continental erosion as the source of the increase.

    What evidence do you have of your claim? That’s how science works: evidence. It’s hard work. You don’t get to spout bullshit while setting in your easy chair like you’re trying now.

    This evening, prepare your favorite beverage. Then add an ice cube. Notice the rise in liquid level. The same thing happens when any thing not in the ocean falls in. Whether its California, a mountain, a rock or a grain of sand. In fact, one thing that doesn’t cause sea level rise is the melting of ice already floating in the ocean, i.e. the Arctic ocean ice.

    Now sit down in your easy chair and enjoy sipping your drink and consider that, without hard work, you have proven my contention.

    • Replies: @anon
  63. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @HallParvey

    You really think that global shipping’s 2 billion tons of displacement has raised sea levels a quarter meter since 1880, while Greenland’s ice melt was measured at 217 billions of tons of water just last month? I gotta ask – what is it that you are you drinking?

    > one thing that doesn’t cause sea level rise is the melting of ice already floating in the ocean, i.e. the Arctic ocean ice.

    Ice sitting on land such as Greenland or Antarctica or other glaciers, and melting into the sea, does indeed raise sea level. Back to kindergarten physics for you – hold an ice cube in your hand as it melts into a full glass of water, and watch it overflow.

    Oh, and you forgot thermal expansion. Something covered by third grade physics. Didn’t pay much attention in school, huh?

    Source: The mind-bending physics of Scandinavian sea-level change
    http://sciencenordic.com/mind-bending-physics-scandinavian-sea-level-change

  64. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    > Strictly speaking, the paper referenced above by the author doesn’t deny that temperatures are rising;

    But stupid girl arrogantly disparages the real reason for global warming.

    > it simply proposes a different explanation for this.

    Stupid girl makes a prediction using that faulty explanation that will fail, i.e., “the substantial temperature decreases are expected during the two grand minima to occur in 2020–2055…”

    That is not going to happen, guaranteed; see the chart in comment #37.

    And when the stupid girl’s “grand solar minimum” prediction fails, the denialists are going to desperately cram it down the memory hole, and I’m going to dig it up and shove it in their lying faces. Less than 5 months to 2020, so it won’t be too long to start having fun here at Unz with the halfwit deniers.

  65. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:

    Lance ‘Welton, you’ve written good articles recognizing science on race realism. Also, your instincts are good that the Leftoids are using the science of climate change to advance their own nefarious political purposes.

    However, the actual science on global warming is sound. The study you’re defending is going to be thoroughly disproven in a short while, since she predicted “the substantial temperature decreases are expected during the two grand minima to occur in 2020–2055…”

    Factual evidence will disprove her paper in two ways, as follows:

    1. There will be no “substantial temperature decreases” that “occur in 2020” and beyond. Temps will continue to go up. Monitor temperatures and the most accelerated consequence of warming, the melting of the Arctic, because of what scientists call “Arctic Amplification.” The Trump Administration (see my comment #53) is correct that Arctic ice is in a death spiral (see the chart in comment #59.) (And even if the sun does go into a grand solar minimum, the temperatures will likely continue up, perhaps with a temporary temperature decrease, because the change in solar irradiance will be so slight, as shown in comment #37.)

    2. There will be no “grand minimum” that begins in 2020. Monitor both the sun spots and the solar irradiance. This is what the Royal Observatory of Belgium predicts about the sun spot cycle:

    Based on a compilation of more than 60 forecasts published by various teams using a wide range of methods, the panel reached a consensus indicating that cycle 25 will most likely peak between 2023 and 2026 at a maximum sunspot number between 95 and 130.

    Royal Observatory of Belgium
    http://sidc.oma.be/silso/


    You’ve made a mistake, and let’s hope you man enough to admit it when it is abundantly clear. It won’t be but a few short months until 2020 when she’s proven wrong.

    • Replies: @A.R.
  66. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:

    > It is a tool employed by the Left

    The Left gets to wield the tool of Science, because the Right voluntarily abdicated the realm of Science to the Left at the Scopes Monkey Trials. The Left got the Cathedral, the Right got boxy wooden Ark in Kentucky.

    And even if you think it’s clever to flip the script of who abdicated Science, you’re failing, because in 5 months, Zharkova’s hare-brained 2020 predictions of (1) “substantial temperature decreases” that “occur in 2020” and (2) a “grand minimum” will prove wrong.

  67. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > to predict temperature changes

    That’s exactly what Zharkova’s paper did, predict “SUBSTANTIAL” temperature changes. In 2020. Fewer than 5 months away! I’ll quote her:

    …substantial temperature decreases are expected during the two grand minima to occur in 2020–2055

    Your humiliation on unz is about to begin in 2020. I’ve got comment #2 archived and ready to shove back in your stupid face.

    > I do know some astronomy…he astronomical calculations are done – to me, most of it easy to follow – that predict…

    lol!!! You are nothing but a lying bullshitter. And that will be proven in 2020 when Zharkova’s predictions–and your synchophatic dimwittery–fail spectacularly.

  68. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dieter Kief

    > the hypothesis looks reasonable at first glance

    LOL! Yeah, a bunch of pajama-boys thought that about Hillary’s hypothesis. You “I’m with her” beta-orbiters are about to be as humiliated in 2020 as you were in 2016 when you voted for Hillary.

    Humiliation is what happens when you believe in a dumbcunt who can’t do THE MATH.

  69. anon[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > a trivial calculation

    Neither you nor Zharkova can do The Maths. There will be neither “substantial temperature decreases” nor “two grand minima” starting in “2020” like Zharkova predicts.

  70. A.R. says:
    @UncommonGround

    “I’m not familiar with this “Genetic Male Variability Hypothesis” and I’m not an expert who could judge about its soundness, but it seems to me possible that it’s in fact very questionable and that it might be easily debunked.”

    Now I am not an expert who could judge about your soundness, but it seems to me possible that your very self-contradictory sentence in fact makes anything else you might want to express very questionable and that it might be easily debunked…

  71. A.R. says:
    @anon

    “the substantial temperature decreases are expected during the two grand minima to occur in 2020–2055…”
    Is it not possible her meaning is sometime between 2020 and 2055? Not in fact January the first 2020?
    By the way I have no idea whether her prediction is as crazy as some of you think, or if it`s actually based on sound logic as others claim.

    • Replies: @anon
  72. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @A.R.

    > sometime between 2020 and 2055

    Nosiree. She thinks that the next couple solar cycle of sunspots will be dead, a grand solar minimum, starting in 2020. Did you miss the chart in comment #65? Sorry, but her prediction fails totally when the next solar cycle sun spot count start to go back up.

    • Replies: @A.R.
  73. A.R. says:
    @anon

    Ok, I see. Thanks for replying.

    • Replies: @anon
  74. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @A.R.

    You’re welcome, ArmaLite. To clarify the chart in comment #65 for others:

    And in 11 years or so, when the sunspot cycles down yet again, dumbcunt will sucker dupes into believing yet another “mini ice age” is just around the corner. Here’s a good article from a reporter who actually contacted her.

    Zharkova disagrees – I contacted her, and she told me that she believes a grand solar minimum would have a much bigger cooling effect. However, she also referenced long-debunked myths about global warming on Mars and Jupiter, and made a comment about “the preachers of global warming.” She’s clearly passionate about her research…

    The ‘imminent mini ice age’ myth is back, and it’s still wrong
    We can’t accurately predict solar activity, and a quiet solar cycle would have a small impact on Earth’s climate anyway
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/09/the-imminent-mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong

  75. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Brad Anbro

    > Back then, it was “global cooling;”

    That’s what it is still, according to Lance Welton, a new mini ice age as predicted by the dumbcunt he’s defending. Does that mean that Zharkova and/or Lance Welton are an “elite” part of “the cabal” trying to “TAX” you into “ENSLAVEMENT?” You ain’t paranoid enough! Unz is out to get you!

    • Replies: @Brad Anbro
  76. @anon

    In the first place, I DO NOT hide behind an “alias” – (anon[396]); I use my real name and I am not ashamed to state my opinions. I first entered the work force as an industrial electrician trainee in 1974 and had been continuously employed in that capacity, until I retired a couple of years ago.

    What I have experienced and witnessed in that time has been responsible for forming my opinions and thoughts. I have come to the realization that there is very little that happens in the USA and around the world which is not a part of a conspiracy or a scam – everything political is ultimately economic – all about the DOLLAR and trying to screw everyone out of as much “money” as is legally (and illegally) possible.

    The United States has gone from being the world’s largest CREDITOR nation to being the world’s largest DEBTOR nation. This has taken place during my working lifetime, with the complicity of BOTH the “Republican” AND “Democratic” parties. The United States, according to standard accounting principles, is BANKRUPT…thanks to the “elite” or the “cabal” or whatever you wish to call them.

    (signed)

    Bradley R. Anbro

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Lance Welton Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?