Tag Archives: Global cooling

2024 Hurricane GWO Predictions

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

From the Press Release February 1, 2024

2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season – will be very active
with 20 Named Storms and 6 landfall Hot-Spots.

Tampa-Ocala, Florida, United States, February 1, 2024 /EINPresswire.com/ —

The Atlantic Hurricane Seasons have been extremely active since 2016 – and will continue to be abnormally active for the next several years. This is not due to a global warming cycle – but instead– it is due to the naturally occurring Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) that enhances a cyclical ClimatePulse Cycle.

During the current AMO warm ocean cycle (warmest portion in 2016), the United States has experienced 40 named storms making landfall, with 20 of them being hurricanes – 9 of which were major hurricane landfalls. This very active hurricane cycle – will likely continue for another 10 years.

What Should We Expect in 2024

An average hurricane season has 12-13 named storms and 6 hurricanes. The combination of the AMO warm ocean water cycle, favorable atmospheric conditions, and the enhanced ClimatePulse Cycle – will provide favorable conditions for a very active and destructive hurricane season in 2024.

Professor David Dilley is predicting 20 named storms, 8 hurricanes with 3 to 4 of them being major hurricanes. The United States and Caribbean will have 6 Hot-Spots with 3 to 4 United States hurricane landfalls expected, and 1 or 2 in the Caribbean. In addition, there is the potential for 1 or 2 major hurricane landfalls.

GWO’s Hot-Spot Predictions 2023

Background Post: David Dilley: Signals of Global Cooling

Tom Nelson interviewed David Dilley last month and the video is above.  For those who prefer reading I provide below a transcript from the closed captions, along with the key exhibits from the presentation.

Synopsis: Between the two oceans cooling down and the natural global cooling cycle coming down we’re going to see a big dip in the temperatures worldwide during the next 10, 15 years. The cold cycle’s going to take about 20 years to bottom out. We’re going to be in an extremely cold period during that time, colder than the 1960s and 50s here in the United States. So it’s going to be very cold.

TN: I have David Dilly here, and David could you tell us a little bit about yourself?

DD: I’m a meteorologist, climatologist, for which I have about 52 years of experience, and I’m still trying to figure that out because I’m only 30 years old. But but I’ve been in the business a long time. I was a weather officer in the Air Force in the National Weather Service. Then I left to set up my own company called Global Weather Oscillations; the easiest way to remember it is global weather cycles.com.

So we’re going to take a look today at something that NOAA is really talking about: the Carbon Dioxide and Climate Cycles. They’re just talking about today’s carbon dioxide values as far as the fossil fuel is concerned. You’re not going to see this out there anywhere on the web. It’s 78% of the atmospheric gases is nitrogen of all things, 21% is oxygen, 0.9 is argon that is 99.99 percent the atmospheric gases. That doesn’t leave much that’s just about all of what we call dry air. To be non-dry air includes the greenhouse gases. The greenhouse gases now are variable regarding how much of it is water vapor how much of it is carbon dioxide. Water vapor is anywhere from one to four percent of the atmospheric gases, that’s quite a bit. It can be zero percent of the Arctic and Antarctic because that’s a desert, but it can be all the way up to four percent. So one to four percent we’ll say.

Carbon dioxide of all things it’s a trace gas it’s less than .05%, a lot less than than water vapor. less than .05 now to put it in perspective, let’s just look at the greenhouse gases here and what we see is water vapor we’re gonna do the average of it two percent that’s 20 000 parts per million. Natural carbon dioxide what I’m going to show you later on in the presentation is 380 parts per million.

Now NOAA and the IPCC say it (natural CO2) is down around 285 parts per million,
we’re going to show you that’s false.

And so the natural is point zero four percent of the atmospheric gases, while fossil fuel I’m going to show you it’s only 35 parts per million; that’s point zero zero four percent or four one thousands of a one percent. And do you think that can cause climate change?

Of course not.  We go down to Vostok in the Antarctic and there is a very deep frozen lake where they drill down fifteen thousand eight five hundred and eighty eight feet down to the bottom. That’s a long ways down over 500 000 years. So I take core samples and with the core samples they figure out how how much it is carbon dioxide what the temperatures are. These are approximate, but what they they get from a core sample is a an estimate of the temperatures and carbon dioxide during the past 500 000 years.

If we go back say 450 000 years, the red line is temperature. So what happened, we came quickly just in a few thousand years out of a deep Ice Age into a interglacial warm period. You can see the temperatures really slid up and the ice cores estimate the carbon dioxide to be right around 280 parts per million. Then we slide down out of the warm period into a deep Ice Age and you can see that the carbon dioxide is actually staying up high there. If carbon dioxide caused global warming, why did the temperatures drop; it does not make sense.

Eventually the carbon dioxide goes down because it’s being absorbed by the oceans. The oceans keep absorbing it over the course of a hundred thousand years. Then when you come up on your next interglacial warm period 338 000 years ago, the temperature goes up and the carbon dioxide is released from the oceans back into the atmosphere. And you can see the carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise and actually when you hit the peak of the temperature back 338 000 years ago, the carbon dioxide does not Peak out until 7000 years later. It takes quite a while but carbon dioxide peaked out at 298 parts per million. But look at that temperature then dropping quickly into an ice age while carbon dioxide is at its peak.

That’s proof right there the carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.

As we come over on the right hand side of the graphic this is about 18 000 years ago. It’s 11 000 years ago we came out of the glacial period, we warmed up quickly, we got up to about to 190 parts per million.

Then we started to take records in Hawaii in the 1950s and the instruments there said: Wow, all of a sudden now we’re up to 412 parts per million. We’ve never been that high before.  This is what we’re going to investigate: what is going on with the glacial periods and also the core samples. This is a graphic of the carbon dioxide. The peak of The inter glacial warm periods is every 120 000 years ago we’re going back 800 000 years.

Now do we have other research that will confirm what I’m saying. This is about a year ago and they’ve been adding papers to it and this corrects NOAA’s calculations of the rise in carbon dioxide since 1850. It’s in a radiation safety Journal Health physics journal and this is the name of the paper itself. The authors are professors of radiological Sciences. They’re retired and that’s a big thing because if you’re not retired, if you’re at a university, you can’t do research like this because of federal grants and everything. You have to wait until you’re retired and then you can do real science when they were working they were at the department of physics at University of Massachusetts. It’s Kenneth Skrable, George Chabot, and Clayton French and here is what they found.

This is extremely important. Since 1850 the red here is saying the increase due to fossil fuel,  and they’re showing all of that is the increase due to fossil fuel. Now how do we determine that well up on a high mountain in Hawaii we have a infrared spectrometer since 1958 it’s been been taking measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However three Isotopes of Carbon are 12, 13 and 14. and the spectrometer is taking the total of all three. It’s not separating what is natural from what is fossil fuel.

Because the ice core samples say we’ve never been above 300 parts per million
NOAA is assuming that the rise above 300 parts per million is all fossil fuel.

An assumption is all it is. It’s assumed by trying to take averages of how much CO2 is taken back in by the oceans how much of it is a given not from industry. Taking those assumptions some physicists made a formula to determine how much is fossil fuel and how much is natural going back all the way back to 1750. These red lines again are what NOAA says is the increase by fossil fuel.

Well their formula separates the carbon 12, 13 and 14 to determine what is what and this is their findings as I switched everything over to green. Green is the natural increase in carbon dioxide all the way up to 1958. Now remember it’s a paper going back to 2018, but it says the increase has been from 280 parts per million up to 408 and NOAA says it is all from fossil fuel. This research paper says No, it is nearly 80% natural just like what I showed on my formulations, eighty percent natural, onlyabout 20% industrial. That’s not enough to cause climate change.

[Note: My synopsis of Skrable et al. is On CO2 Sources and Isotopes.]

Now I’m going to show you one last paper that will also verify the findings and this is using a different method fossilized plant leaflets and as you can see in this picture there’s little cells in there they call these stomata cells which are like the lungs in a human being. So they look at the fossilized plant leaflets and unlike the ice core samples where you’re taking an average over one thousand or four thousand years, the fossilized plant leaflets can give you the exact year going back the past thousand years so you can determine each year what is going on.

So the stomata cells are like the lungs in a human being or in animals but he’d found that if the leaflet has a lot of stomata cells it means a lot less carbon dioxide in the air at that time. When CO2 is plentiful, plants don’t need more oxygen lung power to get the carbon dioxide; if it has fewer cells that means there was a lot of carbon dioxide in the air.

And the beautiful thing about plant life taking in carbon dioxide is the byproduct is oxygen which we drastically need. What the plant stomata cells show during the past 1200 years: back in 800 A.D it says we were way up to 375 parts per million natural carbon dioxide and then dipped way down to 325 in one thousand A.D. Then it dipped way down to 230 and it dipped up down, up down, up down up, down. In year 2010 it was up at 375 parts per million.

Let’s look at the plant stomata that could be pretty darn real and also if you take a mean value of the plant stomata over the course of a thousand years you come out 301 parts per million. The main value of ice cores over a thousand year period 297 parts per million really darn close to being the same as now. Let’s take the plant stomata readings of the atmospheric carbon dioxide and overlay it onto our global warming and cooling Cycles during the past 1200 years. We have had six global warming Cycles during the past 1200 years as noted here in the red. This is back around 850 A.D and then you can see it cools down then we warm up again, cool down warm up cool way down and so on for six global warming cycles. People don’t talk about that but we have had six of them.

When we overlay the plant stomata atmospheric carbon dioxide, guess what: We see a perfect fit. The high values in carbon dioxide peak on global warming cycles, so that brings a lot more credibility into the plants stomata cells for recording carbon dioxide.

So putting it all together we since 1850 NOAA and the IPCC say that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is 100% due to fossil fuel and human activity. The three studies I just showed you and the corrections I made on the ice core samples all show it’s 80% natural rise. Far too little fossil fuel effects to cause climate change, it is almost all natural.

Here we are today over here on the right the average is a global cooling cycle comes about every 230 years and the global cooling cycles last for a good 100, 150 years. So here we are right now, average for the return of the global cooling cycle is 230 years and the last global cooling cycle began in 1794. Add 230 to that and you calculate the year 2024.

This is 2023. so we should be sliding into a global cooling cycle, a natural global cooling cycle.

And we have signals that it is beginning. Global warming Cycles begin in the Arctic and the Antarctic when they warm up over the course of 20, 30 years or so. And as the Arctic and Antarctic warm up there’s less cold air available through the mid-latitudes. So over time the mid-latitudes warm up so that’s where global warming spreads.

In the next phase, global cooling also begins at the Arctic and the Antarctic.

What has happened just this past year, the spring and summer in the Arctic was the coldest on record. You had that during a global warming period, so that’s a signal that the Arctic is drastically cooling down. In 2021 the Antarctic had the coldest winter on record. How you have two records like that if you’re not sliding into global cooling? There’s more cold air available and it’s going to cool down the mid-latitudes and that starts our global cooling cycle. And we’re coming into that right now. Winter 2020 was a third coldest January and February on record from Alaska through Central Northern Canada into Greenland.  Antarctica as I indicated winter of 2021 coldest on record. Arctic 2022 coldest spring and summer on record since 1958, and the most Arctic Ice extent in 8 to 16 years. 

The real main point is carbon dioxide increase is mainly natural, it is not causing a global warming cycle. It’s a natural global warming cycle and we’re sliding back into a natural global cooling cycle.

TN: If you had to make a prediction what would you think of the cooling between now and 2050. Do you think it will cool between now and 2050 are you fairly confident?

DD: Actually we’re going to see a pretty good cool down here into January. The whole atmospheric circulation is beginning to change the La Nina out in the Pacific is now fading it’s going to be gone here by mid to end of January, and we can see changes in the atmospheric circulation going on now.
The cold air in Canada is going to start making its way down more into the United States during late January.

For this year we do see the drastic change and what we’re going to see really well through 2050 or so. The IPCC and NOAA say that the oceans are going to rise anywhere from eight to 26 inches during that time period. I say it may rise an inch, maybe not even that much because we’re going into a global cooling cycle now. The poles are cooling down.

Pacific Ocean has phases going back to the year 1580. For past 500 years we’ve seen these warm phase and cold phase Cycles in the Pacific Ocean which last for anywhere from about 25 to 40 years. The Pacific has been in a 40-year warm cycle which ties the record going back uh 500 years. Pacific is sliding into a cold or a cool phase ocean water cycle, and that’s going to help to cool down ,especially up around Alaska. And the Atlantic Ocean will be going into a cool phase of its own right after 2030 or so.

Between the two oceans cooling down and the natural global cooling cycle coming in
we’re going to see a big dip in the temperatures worldwide during the next 10 to 15 years.

The global warming cycle took about a 20-year period to peek out warming from about the year 2000 up to about 2021 so it took 20 years to hit the peak; the cold cycle is going to take about 20 years to bottom out also at the coldest and that’s going to be around 2040 or so. Unitil the late 2030s so we’re going to be in an extremely cold period during that time, colder than the 1960s and 50s here in the United States.

TN: Is there any sort of a simple explanation as to what causes that 230 year cycle that you mentioned?

DD: The simple explanation is our glacial periods and interglatial periods become about every 120 000 years are due to the Earth path around the Sun; where the Earth swings out further away from the Sun and also the tilt of the earth also changes.

New data out is showing that we’ve actually been cooling down during the past five to six years. So this is all looking like we are already going gradually into a global cooling Cycle. But we’re going to see a more dramatic change in the cooling cycle.

What NOAA and IPCC are doing, their science is political science while we’re looking here today at real science. There’s a huge difference. Keep your eyes open the next few years and all of a sudden in a few years people are going to be saying: Wait a minute, what are we doing here? We’re down the wrong path we need to wake up.

Comment:

The underlying issue is the assumption that the future can only be warmer than the present. Once you accept the notion that CO2 makes the earth’s surface warmer (an unproven conjecture), then temperatures can only go higher since CO2 keeps rising. The present plateau in temperatures is inconvenient, but actual cooling would directly contradict the CO2 doctrine. Some excuses can be fabricated for a time, but an extended period of cooling undermines the whole global warming mantra.

It’s not a matter of fearing a new ice age. That will come eventually, according to our planet’s history, but the warning will come from increasing ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere. Presently infrastructures in many places are not ready to meet a return of 1950s weather, let alone something unprecedented.

Public policy must include preparations for cooling since that is the greater hazard. Cold harms the biosphere: plants, animals and humans. And it is expensive and energy intensive to protect life from the ravages of cold. Society can not afford to be in denial about the prospect of the current temperature plateau ending with cooling.

Background Post: By the Numbers: CO2 Mostly Natural

See Also: What If It’s Global Cooling, Not Warming?

Wash Post Editorial Board follows orders of megalomaniac billionaires: ‘Humans might need to re-engineer the climate’ – Tout injecting ‘100,000 tons of sulfur per year into lower stratosphere to block solar rays’

From Climate Depot

By Marc Morano

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/27/climate-change-geoengineering

Washington Post Editorial Board: ‘Humans might need to re-engineer the climate’ –

“A conversation about the risks and potential benefits of re-engineering the climate is urgently needed.” … “Climate engineering scholars David Keith at the University of Chicago and Wake Smith at Yale think it would take no more than 15 souped-up Gulfstream jets to send up, say, 100,000 tons of sulfur per year into the lower stratosphere to block solar rays, at an annual cost of some $500 million. This could happen in as little as five years.”

#

Flashback 2023: Washington Post: A ‘climate solution’ that spies worry could trigger war –

Solar geoengineering holds promise for reducing global temperatures. Absent international agreements, it could also spark conflict. -It sounds like something out of science fiction: A country suffering from heat, flooding or crop failures decides on its own to send out a fleet of aircraft to spray a fine, sun-blocking mist into the earth’s atmosphere, reducing temperatures and providing relief to parched populations. Other countries view it as a threat to their own citizens and ready a military response.

But members of the U.S. intelligence community and other national security officials were worried enough last year to plot how to avert a war triggered by this kind of climate engineering. In a role-playing exercise, they practiced managing the tensions that would be unleashed, according to people familiar with the exercise, a sign that they see it as a credible threat in need of a strategy.

The practice, known as solar geoengineering, is theoretically possible. And as the world’s most vulnerable populations suffer more sharply from rising temperatures, global decision-makers will likely come under heavy pressure to deploy the technology, scientists and policymakers say. Compared to other methods to combat the effects of climate change, it’s likely to be cheaper and faster.

Because the technique could weaken the sun’s power across the globe — not just above whichever country decided to deploy it — security officials are concerned about the potential to spark conflict, since a single capital could make decisions that shape the entire world’s fate.

#

Biden: ‘The weather may be beyond our control — for now’ – Biden joins Bill Gates & China in seeking to control the weather – August 9, 2022

Bill Gates’ Savior Complex: Funds Sun-Dimming Plan To Save the Human Race

Watch: Morano on Fox and Friends rips efforts to block the sun with geoengineering to stop ‘global warming’ –

Marc Morano: This is Bill Gates funding this as well through Harvard University. This is retro 1970s. In the 1970s, they believed fossil fuels were creating aerosols blocking the sun, creating man-made global cooling. So they came up with the same kind of geo-engineering solutions back then. They wanted to put black soot on the Arctic to melt it. There was one proposal was to use nuclear energy to loosen the Arctic ice caps because they thought they were growing too much. John Holdren (Science Czar) in the Obama Administration supported geo-engineering, if you will, of the climate. This is radical, risky, unproven, with unknown effects but they are doing it as a sort of lever over us. The Biden Administration is saying ‘We know this is dangerous, we don’t know the effects, but darn it, people aren’t buying electric cars fast enough, or they aren’t embracing the Green New Deal policies, so we have to risk our entire planet with this research.’ It is basically weather modification. China has been doing it for years. Another form of what the government is been doing. ABC News meteorologists (Ginger Zee) talked about the cloud seeding to increase rain, snow or storms, They will — the government will control the weather, and you will be Happy. That seems to be the new motto.

Watch: World Economic Forum touts China’s efforts ‘to control the weather’ with ‘cloud seeding’ to create ’55 billion tons of artificial rain’ – ‘Weather Modification Department’

#

Flashback: CBS News segment on ‘Controlling the weather’ – ‘How to change the weather on purpose’ by ‘firing trillion watt lasers into the sky’

August 26, 2023

Kaku: “Instead of doing a rain dance, we physicists are firing trillion watt lasers into the sky to actually precipitate rain clouds and actually bring down lightning bolts. This is potentially a game-changer.”

“It is experimental, however in the laboratory, so far it works when you have water vapor and you have dust particles or ice crystals. You can precipitate rain. It condenses around the seeds. These seeds can also be created by laser beams by firing trillion watt lasers you rip apart the electrons creating what I call ions and these ions act like seeds like dust particles bringing down rain and even lightning.”  

CBS News anchor Nora O’Donnell: “They were talking about climate change yesterday and now we’re learning that scientists and researchers are looking at how to change the weather on purpose. That’s right. Lasers now could one day manipulate rain and lightning.”

Background Info:

CNN in 2022: Scientists in the US are flying planes into clouds to make it snow more – CNN: “It’s called cloud seeding, and it’s nothing new. It’s been around since the 1940s and countries all over the world have been doing it for various reasons (most notably China), but it’s a growing practice in the US, especially in the drought-stricken West.”

Good Morning America meteorologist Ginger Zee on The View: Climate is now so ‘desperate’ that ‘cloud seeding is ramping up..it is huge & only getting bigger’ – ‘They send silver iodide into the clouds & it makes it snow more’ – Gives storms ‘a little boost’

https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1673924546477301763

Ginger Zee On Climate Change’s Impact On America’s Vulnerable River System | The View – Broadcast Apr 18, 2023 – Ginger Zee: “There are some solutions happening. Here’s where it’s always going to get controversial, perhaps. Cloud seeding is something that I studied in school for meteorology — weather modification. Back when I went to school, it was like pooh-poohed a little bit, too expensive; it’s not efficient enough. Well, guess what? When you get desperate, and then technology gets better. Twenty years later, here we are, cloud seeding is ramping up so big. You see me there, showing that flare on the plane. They send silver iodide into the clouds, and it then it makes it snow more. So they can’t make a cloud, right? But they’re taking storms already there and then giving it a little boost. That part is not new. What’s new is they have hundreds of these ground cloud seeders. so they are actually puffing the silver iodide with a flare into the air. That thing sits all over the Rocky Mountains, all over the American West. Ten states are doing this. My friend Russ (Schumacher) is the State Climatologist of Colorado, and he said, ‘You got to see with cloud seeding. It is huge, and it’s only getting better by next year.”

Bill Gates’ Savior Complex: Funds Sun-Dimming Plan To Save the Human Race

Watch: Morano on Fox and Friends rips efforts to block the sun with geoengineering to stop ‘global warming’

PLAYING GOD? Tens of millions spent on huge project to change the WEATHER – ‘Putting chemicals in the sky’

NYT: Dangerously Stupid Science: Solar Geoengineering: The National Academies said the United States must study technologies that would artificially cool the planet by reflecting away some sunlight, citing the lack of progress fighting global warming.

Dangerously Stupid Science: Solar Geoengineering

A Bill Gates Venture with Harvard University Aims To Spray Dust Into The Atmosphere To Block The Sun. What Could Go Wrong?

A sun reflector for Earth? Scientists explore the potential risks and benefits

Bill Gates Is Thinking About Dimming the Sun

Claim: Bill Gates Is Funding a Chemical Cloud That Could Put an End to Global Warming

Sweden canceled Bill Gates’ controversial climate geoengineering project (SCoPEx) aiming to block the sun to stop global warming

Scientific American: Eight States Are Seeding Clouds to Overcome Megadrought – 2021: This is not a page from a science fiction novel. “Cloud seeding” is a real practice—in fact, it’s been around for decades. It’s used today to boost precipitation in at least eight states across the western U.S. and dozens of countries around the world. … Open flames burst from the throats of metal chimneys, mounted on squat towers nestled among the peaks. With a low hiss, puffs of particles belch from their mouths into the air, where the wind catches them and whisks them away. These aren’t ordinary particles. They’re tiny bits of crushed-up silver iodide, a crystal-like photosensitive substance once used in photography. But it’s not used to take pictures out in the mountains. It’s meant to make snow. … The crystalline silver iodide particles have a structure similar to ice—and inside a cloud, like attracts like. Water droplets begin to cluster around the particles, freezing solid as they gather together. These frozen clusters eventually grow too heavy to stay in the air. They fall from the cloud and drift gently toward the Earth, dusting the mountaintops with fresh snow.

Book excerpt on geoengineering the climate from “Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal Is Even Worse than You Think”

Green Fraud: Pages 113-114

Book excerpt:

We’re in luck! Geoengineering solves both global cooling AND global warming.

Newsweek noted that one of the “more spectacular solutions proposed” for the coming ice age was “melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers.” A similar “solution” was also suggested by Leonard Nimoy in a 1978 episode of In Search Of…. The man who played Spock presented other such “solutions” for global cooling, including using nuclear energy to “loosen polar ice caps” or blanketing the ice caps in soot to help melt them.

Fast forward to the modern climate change debate, and the same type of ideas are being offered. In 2018, the idea of geoengineering the Earth or its atmosphere was proposed to fight “global warming.” A 2018 headline in the UK Independent blared: “First Ever Sun-Dimming Experiment Will Mimic Volcanic Eruption in Attempt to Reverse Global Warming.”

The article explained, “Plans to geoengineer the atmosphere by blocking out sunlight have been floated before, but an experiment launched next year by Harvard researchers will be the first to test the theory in the stratosphere.” Research team member David Keith boasted, “If solar geoengineering is as good as what is shown in these models, it would be crazy not to take it seriously.” The experiment “has been partly funded by Bill Gates of Microsoft.”

In 2009, Obama White House science advisor John Holdren suggested that we inject pollutants into the atmosphere to cool the planet and cancel out the warming impacts of pollution. As Keith reported, “Holdren told the Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays….‘It’s got to be looked at,’ Holdren said. ‘We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.’”

End excerpt

#

Global Cooling wipes out Elephant Seals and Penguin colonies from warmer Antarctica, 1,000 years ago

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

Where are the tears? Elephant Seals and Penguins were forced off the Ross sea 1,000 years ago because it got too cold

One thousand years ago Southern Elephant Seals were happily living in the Ross Sea of Antarctica. Likewise Adelie Penguins frolicked in the sun there during the “Penguin Optimum” of three to four thousand years ago. They had lived there on and off for thousands of years in the Holocene, but the glaciers came back and the cold times returned, and all the colonies were wiped out. All that’s left there now is just their rotting bones and fur as testament to the devastation of Global Cooling.

Thanks to Kenneth Richard at NoTricksZone for his dedication in digging up these papers.

The Ross Sea is a part of Antarctica that is south of New Zealand, and in the pictures below the remains of the seals and penguins show that they had well established colonies in places where they are unable to live now. The red circles mark the seal colonies, and the blue stars show the penguins. The colonies ebbed and flowed but then were lost as the Little Ice Age began and have not recovered.

Today the beaches are an empty wasteland:

Today, the beaches are largely free of marine mammals and birds; skuas (Stercorarius maccormicki) are the most widespread species. Along the southern coast, penguins are absent, although small Adélie (Pygoscelis adeliae) rookeries existed in the past (i.e., Baroni and Orombelli, 1991, 1994a; Emslie et al., 2007). Adélies also occur adjacent to Terra Nova Bay at Adélie Cove and Inexpressible Island. Solitary or small groups of Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) occasionally haul out on the VLC. No other seals use these beaches at present.

The seals and penguins of Antarctica must be desperately hoping for some global warming so they can return to their ancestral homes and flourish where only desolate ice grips the sea and shore now. If only humans could do something about that!

Indeed, it’s time to launch a new campaign: “Fossil fuels can save the seals”. (It has just as much scientific validity as any eco-campaign running today, ask the IPCC!).

I don’t believe human emissions can warm the planet enough for the penguins to notice, but what if I’m wrong?

There really was a “Penguin Optimum” at about the same time as the Minoans and the Myceneans thrived. Bring back the warmth!

The red and yellow bars mark warmer eras where the marine mammals flourished. The diatom results marked in blue at the bottom (F. curta) of the graph below, show how sea ice expanded in the last thousand years as the cold made life impossible for the seals and penguins. The diatom results marked in red (T. antarctica) rise in the eras of longer warmer summers. The graph above runs “backwards” in time from right (the past) to left (present).

Tell the children, the world was warmer a thousand years ago, and the cooling has been a killer. If they like life on Earth, they want more warming, not more cooling. The world has been cooling for 5,000 years, and if we could warm the Earth that would be a good thing.

See these posts for references:

REFERENCE

Hall et al (2023) Widespread southern elephant seal occupation of the Victoria land coast implies a warmer-than-present Ross Sea in the mid-to-late Holocene, Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 303, 1 March 2023, 107991

Arthur Viterito:”I think the temperatures are going to cool down” | Tom Nelson Pod #175

Art Viterito is a retired Professor of Geography who taught at the University of Pittsburgh, the George Washington University and the College of Southern Maryland.

Art received his Ph.D. from the University of Denver with specialties in climatology, physical geography, and geographic information systems. He has published research in the areas of urban climatology and global climate change. His work in urban climatology was cited in the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and his most recent work on the role of oceanic geothermal heat in modulating climate has been cited by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

Art is a member of the National Association of Scholars, and is a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute. He currently resides in Vero Beach, Florida.

00:00 Introduction and Guest Background
00:38 Understanding the Geothermal Paradox
01:24 Geothermal Heat and Global Temperatures
01:57 Exploring the Mid Ocean Ridge System
04:56 The Geothermal Paradox and its Impact
06:38 The Role of Seismic Activity in Global Warming
08:30 The Impact of Geothermal Heating on Ocean Circulation
14:22 The Connection Between Seismic Activity and Global Temperatures
21:27 Understanding the Impact of Geothermal Heating on Climate
46:02 Conclusion and Future Predictions

Wasting Time with Climate Science?

From Watts Up With That?

Opinion by Kip Hansen — 1 August 2023

Here I ask a simple question.  Are we all wasting our time with climate science?  Reading about it, writing about it, worrying about it, fighting about it, arguing about it.

To my horror, I discover that I have been involved in this enterprise for far more than a decade, originally writing from the Caribbean where my wife and I were living on our sailing catamaran while doing various humanitarian projects.   Not quite as long as Anthony Watts, who started WUWT in 2006, but nearly.

Anthony’s efforts led him to be the owner and host of the world’s most viewed website on climate.  Given that WUWT represents the “minority report” on climate, that is a heck of an achievement.  Yet the jury is still out on how much of an impact on climate policy and public opinion this site, and the dozen or so other high impact climate skeptic websites, blogs, podcasts, etc.,  have made and will make.   

Much of the “climate science” being done, at least that small portion that reaches the public eye by appearing in the mass media, falls into that category which the honorable Dr. Judith Curry long ago labelled “climate science ‘taxonomy’” – “‘taxonomy’, i.e. research that is neither useful nor contributes to fundamental understanding”.  That type of so-called climate science is turned into climate alarm in spades, in diamonds, in hearts and in clubs – the whole deck.

I am speaking of the nonsense one reads and hears from NPR, PBS, BBC, NBC, AP, CNN, Reuters, ABC, the NY Times,  the Guardian, the Washington Post – many of whom have openly joined themselves into propaganda cabals ( and this one) dedicated to spreading misleading information about climate and climate change.  [A new one has just been announced: GRIST and AP. ]  Even when a media organization is not directly associated with one of these collaborative misinformation outlets, their editors and journalists have to face the wrath of those that are – there are few working journalists willing to fight the tide on climate alarmism.

Even the IPCC-boosting Pielke Jr. has been blasting the media for repeating absolutely false narratives on extreme weather — the very same media that repeats endlessly the mindboggling crazy pronouncements of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres — “the era of global boiling has arrived.”

CLINTEL, has just published an extremely valuable book, “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC“, widely available, in softcover and eBook formats.  The book examines the IPCC’s AR6 and documents biases and errors in the Working Group 1 (Scientific Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports.  [Disclosure: I contributed one of the chapters – thus have a conflict of interest.]

We see the forked-tongued enemy.  A two-pronged approach.  First, the underlying science is slightly warped, slightly biased, misleadingly reported in the latest IPCC Assessment Report (AR6) WG1 and WG2.  A lot of this is simple confirmation bias and forced-consensus biasing.   The truth in is there, but one needs to dodge the rhetoric and look only at the data itself, which is mostly correct.   And then, the Summaries for Policy Makers (SPMs)  wildly misrepresent what the science sections have said and transmogrify it into something barely recognizable. 

From the SPMs, the politicians, media moguls, the Davos Crowd, the Green-New-Dealers, the Great Reset-ers, turn the SPM political opinions into outright lies and give the media propaganda cabals their marching orders.

And then, here we are.  Here I am.  I have written about 100 essays and opinion pieces here since 2020 alone.  I’ve been at it more than a decade.  There are a few dozen of others like myself who have researched and written endlessly, both in books and on the ‘Net,  to expose the lies, the disinformation, the misinformation, and the slimy political-shenanigans behind the efforts to “decarbonize” the economy of the world in the name of fighting global cooling, global warming, climate change, the climate crisis.

Every few years we see a slight shift towards the climate skeptic way of thinking in the general populace – and recently, a few nudges in our direction from governments.  The UK will drill-baby-drill to supply its own energy needs from its own resources.  Japan is re-opening nuclear power plants and building new ones.  In November last year, General Motors announced that it will stick with internal combustion engines.  India, the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter and the world’s most populous country , is planning for an expansion of its oil and gas sectors (even as it aims to hit net zero by 2070).   Those living in the real world realize that as Africa grows itself into prosperity, into the world of middle-class nations, it will do so on the back of coal and petroleum produced electricity.  Even relatively well-developed South Africa has acknowledged it needs to continue to burn coal for the present and foreseeable future.

I hope that readers see the obvious contrasts between the “reality” presented daily in the world’s mass media and what is actually happening in the world.  A large percentage of the material appearing on this website points out those contrasts, every single day.  Heartland, the CO2 Coalition, Clintel and other international climate skeptical organizations do so in print and through broadcasts, podcasts, YouTubes and interviews on wide-reaching news outlets. There are many climate skeptic oriented bloggers doing good work. Some of the “good news” is getting out there. 

Is what we do worthwhile?   Yes — It is always worthwhile to do what is right, to do what is good, to tell the truth, to fight the good fight against falsehoods and lies. 

But are we making an impact?  I can no longer tell – I am having a little bit of a “I think I’m burnt-out” stage.  I see a news article about a topic, and I think, “That’s utter claptrap, I’ll write about that.” Only to discover that I’ve already written about it a half-dozen times and really have nothing further to say than what I have already said.   I sometimes fear I just don’t have anything more to say, at all – and when I teach Public Speaking, I tell students, “If you don’t have anything to say —  don’t get up to speak or if you are already up, sit  back down.”

So, my question for the day, and please do comment, I promise not to get mad at you…..

Should I just sit back down and shut up? 

or

Should I keep banging away, just because ‘someone has to’?

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

I guess the same question applies to all of us here….

This is, I hope obviously, a piece meant to stimulate discussion.  So, please, please, discuss.

On Pielke Jr.:  I like Pielke Jr.  He does good work.  He tells the truth as he sees it.  He is one of the most effective of the “climate skeptical voices”, albeit in his own way.  He is an IPCC-booster but even he thinks it needs serious reform. He has paid a heavy price for his temerity.  Read his substack.

And yes, I do think that there is also some nonsense published here – some even written by me.  That’s the price we pay for freedom.  But, the way I see it, we err in an honest search for truth.

I don’t expect to take too much of a role in the discussion, I have said what I have to say above. But, if your start a comment with “Kip…”, I’ll try to reply.

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

NASA Data: Southern Hemisphere Cooled Over Past Decade…Northern Hemisphere No Rise!

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 10. May 2023

wallup.net

NASA data show no planetary warming over the past decade. Are we heading for cooling? 

Twitter account Zacki here tweeted on the northern and southern hemisphere sea land land surface temperature trend over the past decade, using NASA GISS data.

First lets begin with the northern hemisphere for the past 9 years:

There’s been no general rise in temperature, despite all the claims of a planet that is allegedly rapidly heating.

Next we look at the southern hemisphere:

What a surprise! Global warming isn’t global any more. As the chart shows, the southern hemisphere has in fact cooled over the recent years.

NASA may have to change the chart heading to: “Global cooling: monthly temperature anomaly”

NASA data show no planetary warming over the past decade. Are we heading for cooling?  Twitter account Zacki here tweeted on the northern and southern hemisphere sea land land surface temperature trend over the past decade, using NASA GISS data. 81 weitere Wörter

From NoTricksZone