Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
An Aussie law student has forced the government to settle an accusation it breached its duty to investors, by not adding climate risk warnings to new sales of government debt. The consequences will not be what she expects.
An Aussie law student has forced the government to settle an accusation it breached its duty to investors, by not adding climate risk warnings to new sales of government debt. The consequences will not be what she expects.
Australian government acknowledges risk of climate change to bonds after court case
By the Specialist Reporting Team’s Leonie Thorne and national science, technology and environment reporter Michael Slezak
The federal government has agreed to settle a world-first court case accusing it of misleading investors by failing to disclose the risk climate change poses to its bonds.
The class action called for a public declaration that the Commonwealth had breached its duty to investors, by not disclosing information about how climate change could hurt the value of government bonds.
However, in the proposed settlement terms published today, the government has agreed to publish a statement acknowledging that climate change is a “systemic risk” that may affect the value of its bonds.
In return, Ms O’Donnell will drop the request for a declaration of misleading conduct.
“The settlement is an important first step in realising the risks of climate change,” Ms O’Donnell said.
“The government must now prioritise effective action on climate change to mitigate those risks.”
Law student Katta O’Donnell sued the federal government over not disclosing the risks climate change posed to her bonds investments.(Supplied: Meggie Weaver)
Katta, you just broke the green movement.
The problem debt addicted politicians are facing is not climate change, the problem the government is facing is court acceptance that the government believes climate change is a problem, and that they were not properly advising investors of the climate risks associated with buying new government debt.
Which response do you think would be easier?
a) Actually doing something about CO2 emissions.
b) Convincing the courts that the government no longer believes climate change will impact their ability to repay debt.
I’m guessing they’ll go with option b). Obviously they may squirm a bit first, try to fake option a), but courts are pretty good at spotting outright lies.
Katta, I know you are not a climate skeptic, but you have given climate skeptics like myself an incomparable gift – a potential lever for restraining out of control government borrowing and climate rhetoric, by forcing left wing politicians to choose one or the other. Thanks to you, they can no longer have both.
What can I say? If you know a lawyer who enjoys a good legal joke, and would like to smack the Biden administration, or any other green left administration, with a stick of their own making, pick up the phone and convince your lawyer friend to launch a similar case in your country. Make sure you get the courts to insist on making the climate warning as terrifying as possible, really scare off the creditors.
You have 40 years of no Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Change and whatever atmospheric warming you want to say occurred, yet looking at the 10-year means I can’t tell if it was warmer or colder in the ’80s than in the ’50s.
Suppose you had four enclosed boxes made of metal. The inner box had a height of 3 inches, the next one 6, the next one 9, and the next one 12. Each was separated by 3 inches.
Obviously, the area of the 12-inch box is larger than the 3-inch one. Each one to fill needs increased volumes of liquid.
Now, what happens if you start filling the inside box with water at a pace greater than what you are draining it at?
It rises to the level of the box and then overflows. You keep filling the inner box. Obviously, the level of the inner box is at a new height from when there was no water input, but now you are filling the area on the outside. So what happens when it fills completely? It overflows, and a new equilibrium for the total system is established ( the two boxes).
But you keep filling it. And the same thing will happen at the next 2 levels, Until such a time that the input equals whatever can be drained out or stops so that what can be drained out can start returning it to normal, it will continue to rise.
Well, that is what you are seeing, and how this is not obvious is beyond me.
You have 40 years of no Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Change and whatever atmospheric warming you want to say occurred, yet looking at the 10-year means I can’t tell if it was warmer or colder in the ’80s than in the ’50s.
SST 51-60
SST 81-90
All this time, CO2 was ramping up. Yet the oceans were largely unchanged as far as the total area of cool, though changes took place, some cooler, some warmer in regional areas. This can be attributed to the natural exchanges that go on in the ocean and interaction with the air.
air temps
I guess the ’50s were a bit cooler, so since CO2 was on the rise, you can use that as a baseline increase and certainly it is not run away or catastrophic. But the Arctic had not warmed BECAUSE THE INPUT OF EXTRA WATER VAPOR DUE TO THE WARMING OCEAN HAD NOT STARTED.
Here is the geothermal input to the ocean, the introduction of the water to the boxes, so to speak.
What happens when the is too much buildup? The base state “overflows” and the strong El Ninos enter in response.
Up goes the temperature in response to water vapor, and where is the greatest increase? In the coldest, driest areas.
Well, here are SST with the jump:
So we got from large scale colder than normal in the ’50s-’80s to large scale normal to above, once the geothermal aspect is introduced (we start filling the boxes).
Air temperature
This cannot be linked to CO2 in any way that would make it the climate control knob. It’s a bit player, minor at that and its actual effect was probably whatever you can find from 1951-1990.
The greatest flip is in the polar regions, where water vapor (WV) makes the biggest difference.
A couple of things. If you are looking at the boxes filled with water, you now have four enclosures, and this means there is a lot of water. So, to continue to increase it so it overflows again, you need an increase in the rate of input. Enter the huge volcano last year, mainly underwater, which showed that the geothermal aspect is huge. But what is incredible is that we DO NOT QUANTIFY WATER VAPOR WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO TEMPERATURE, BUT WE DO QUANTIFY CO2, WHICH THERE ARE NO KNOWN CORRELATIONS. HENCE THE ARGUMENT THAT CO2 is going UP, SO IT MUST BE WHY THE TEMPERATURE IS GOING UP. Temperature is a lousy metric for evaluating the energy of the system compared to water vapor. But think about what is going on here. What is the source of water vapor? It is not your SUV or fossil fuels. It’s the ocean. So by hiding the source, or dismissing it, the people pushing the CAGW manmade climate change either are ignorant to fundamental questions that need to be addressed, or they darn well know what will happen if we bring in the natural forcing. It’s likely the reason the climate models are all too warm, except for one that did not have the CO2 forcing.
How does it change? IT ISN’T UNTIL SUCH A TIME THAT THE NATURAL PROCESS CHANGES. It does have a diminishing return relative to the absolute value of the input, for once input and output are equal, the temperatures will level off. So it is important that we track underwater volcanic activity. Basically, whether by accident or design, we have swept under the rug the answer to the question. An answer I suspect many pushing the climate catastrophe don’t want to see. That it’s not men, and of course your control of men, that rule the climate, but nature itself.
The so-called boiling oceans reveal how little CO2 has to do with it. That’s right, the warming exposes the whole thing because it reveals the true nature of it! The warming has to be from large natural sources. The volcano and its water vapor input simply put an exclamation point on it. And anyone not willing to confront this, (actually, they are but saying it’s relatively minor) violates basic laws of nature.
Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore.
His new book The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate war can be found here. phonyclimatewar.com
The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST4 starting in 2015 through July 2023. A global cooling pattern is seen clearly in the Tropics since its peak in 2016, joined by NH and SH cycling downward since 2016.
The best context for understanding decadal temperature changes comes from the world’s sea surface temperatures (SST), for several reasons:
The ocean covers 71% of the globe and drives average temperatures;
SSTs have a constant water content, (unlike air temperatures), so give a better reading of heat content variations;
Major El Ninos have been the dominant climate feature in recent years.
HadSST is generally regarded as the best of the global SST data sets, and so the temperature story here comes from that source. Previously I used HadSST3 for these reports, but Hadley Centre has made HadSST4 the priority, and v.3 will no longer be updated. HadSST4 is the same as v.3, except that the older data from ship water intake was re-estimated to be generally lower temperatures than shown in v.3. The effect is that v.4 has lower average anomalies for the baseline period 1961-1990, thereby showing higher current anomalies than v.3. This analysis concerns more recent time periods and depends on very similar differentials as those from v.3 despite higher absolute anomaly values in v.4. More on what distinguishes HadSST3 and 4 from other SST products at the end. The user guide for HadSST4 is here.
The Current Context
The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST4 starting in 2015 through July 2023. A global cooling pattern is seen clearly in the Tropics since its peak in 2016, joined by NH and SH cycling downward since 2016.
Note that in 2015-2016 the Tropics and SH peaked in between two summer NH spikes. That pattern repeated in 2019-2020 with a lesser Tropics peak and SH bump, but with higher NH spikes. By end of 2020, cooler SSTs in all regions took the Global anomaly well below the mean for this period. In 2021 the summer NH summer spike was joined by warming in the Tropics but offset by a drop in SH SSTs, which raised the Global anomaly slightly over the mean.
Then in 2022, another strong NH summer spike peaked in August, but this time both the Tropic and SH were countervailing, resulting in only slight Global warming, later receding to the mean. Oct./Nov. temps dropped in NH and the Tropics took the Global anomaly below the average for this period. After an uptick in December, temps in January 2023 dropped everywhere, strongest in NH, with the Global anomaly further below the mean since 2015.
Now comes El Nino as shown by the upward spike in the Tropics since January, the anomaly more than doubling from 0.38C to 0.94C. Now in July 2023, all regions rose, especially NH up from 0.7C to now 1.3C, pulling up the global anomaly to a new high for this period.
Comment:
The climatists have seized on this unusual warming as proof of their Zero Carbon agenda, without addressing how impossible it would be for CO2 warming the air to raise ocean temperatures. It is the ocean that warms the air, not the other way around. Recently Steven Koonin had this to say about the phonomenon confirmed in the graph above:
El Nino is a phenomenon in the climate system that happens once every four or five years. Heat builds up in the equatorial Pacific to the west of Indonesia and so on. Then when enough of it builds up it surges across the Pacific and changes the currents and the winds. As it surges toward South America it was discovered and named in the 19th century It is well understood at this point that the phenomenon has nothing to do with CO2.
Now people talk about changes in that phenomena as a result of CO2 but it’s there in the climate system already and when it happens it influences weather all over the world. We feel it when it gets rainier in Southern California for example. So for the last 3 years we have been in the opposite of an El Nino, a La Nina, part of the reason people think the West Coast has been in drought.
It has now shifted in the last months to an El Nino condition that warms the globe and is thought to contribute to this Spike we have seen. But there are other contributions as well. One of the most surprising ones is that back in January of 2022 an enormous underwater volcano went off in Tonga and it put up a lot of water vapor into the upper atmosphere. It increased the upper atmosphere of water vapor by about 10 percent, and that’s a warming effect, and it may be that is contributing to why the spike is so high.
A longer view of SSTs
The graph above is noisy, but the density is needed to see the seasonal patterns in the oceanic fluctuations. Previous posts focused on the rise and fall of the last El Nino starting in 2015. This post adds a longer view, encompassing the significant 1998 El Nino and since. The color schemes are retained for Global, Tropics, NH and SH anomalies. Despite the longer time frame, I have kept the monthly data (rather than yearly averages) because of interesting shifts between January and July.1995 is a reasonable (ENSO neutral) starting point prior to the first El Nino.
The sharp Tropical rise peaking in 1998 is dominant in the record, starting Jan. ’97 to pull up SSTs uniformly before returning to the same level Jan. ’99. There were strong cool periods before and after the 1998 El Nino event. Then SSTs in all regions returned to the mean in 2001-2.
SSTS fluctuate around the mean until 2007, when another, smaller ENSO event occurs. There is cooling 2007-8, a lower peak warming in 2009-10, following by cooling in 2011-12. Again SSTs are average 2013-14.
Now a different pattern appears. The Tropics cooled sharply to Jan 11, then rise steadily for 4 years to Jan 15, at which point the most recent major El Nino takes off. But this time in contrast to ’97-’99, the Northern Hemisphere produces peaks every summer pulling up the Global average. In fact, these NH peaks appear every July starting in 2003, growing stronger to produce 3 massive highs in 2014, 15 and 16. NH July 2017 was only slightly lower, and a fifth NH peak still lower in Sept. 2018.
The highest summer NH peaks came in 2019 and 2020, only this time the Tropics and SH were offsetting rather adding to the warming. (Note: these are high anomalies on top of the highest absolute temps in the NH.) Since 2014 SH has played a moderating role, offsetting the NH warming pulses. After September 2020 temps dropped off down until February 2021. In 2021-22 there were again summer NH spikes, but in 2022 moderated first by cooling Tropics and SH SSTs, then in October to January 2023 by deeper cooling in NH and Tropics.
Now in 2023 the Tropics flipped from below to well above average, while NH has produced a summer peak with July higher than any previous year. In fact, the summer warming peaks in NH have occurred in August or September, so this July number is likely to go even higher.
What to make of all this? The patterns suggest that in addition to El Ninos in the Pacific driving the Tropic SSTs, something else is going on in the NH. The obvious culprit is the North Atlantic, since I have seen this sort of pulsing before. After reading some papers by David Dilley, I confirmed his observation of Atlantic pulses into the Arctic every 8 to 10 years.
Contemporary AMO Observations
Through January 2023 I depended on the Kaplan AMO Index (not smoothed, not detrended) for N. Atlantic observations. But it is no longer being updated, and NOAA says they don’t know its future. So I find only the Hadsst AMO dataset has data through April. It differs from Kaplan, which reported average absolute temps measured in N. Atlantic. “Hadsst AMO follows Trenberth and Shea (2006) proposal to use the NA region EQ-60°N, 0°-80°W and subtract the global rise of SST 60°S-60°N to obtain a measure of the internal variability, arguing that the effect of external forcing on the North Atlantic should be similar to the effect on the other oceans.” So the values represent differences between the N. Atlantic and the Global ocean.
The chart above confirms what Kaplan also showed. As August is the hottest month for the N. Atlantic, its varibility, high and low, drives the annual results for this basin. Note also the peaks in 2010, lows after 2014, and a rise in 2021. An annual chart below is informative:
Note the difference between blue/green years, beige/brown, and purple/red years. 2010, 2021, 2022 all peaked strongly in August or September. 1998 and 2007 were mildly warm. 2016 and 2018 were matching or cooler than the global average. 2023 started out slightly warm, and now in May and June has spiked to match 2010.
The pattern suggests the ocean may be demonstrating a stairstep pattern like that we have also seen in HadCRUT4.
The purple line is the average anomaly 1980-1996 inclusive, value 0.18. The orange line the average 1980-202306, value 0.38, also for the period 1997-2012. The red line is 2013-202306, value 0.64. As noted above, these rising stages are driven by the combined warming in the Tropics and NH, including both Pacific and Atlantic basins.
Summary
The oceans are driving the warming this century. SSTs took a step up with the 1998 El Nino and have stayed there with help from the North Atlantic, and more recently the Pacific northern “Blob.” The ocean surfaces are releasing a lot of energy, warming the air, but eventually will have a cooling effect. The decline after 1937 was rapid by comparison, so one wonders: How long can the oceans keep this up?
Footnote: Why Rely on HadSST4
HadSST is distinguished from other SST products because HadCRU (Hadley Climatic Research Unit) does not engage in SST interpolation, i.e. infilling estimated anomalies into grid cells lacking sufficient sampling in a given month. From reading the documentation and from queries to Met Office, this is their procedure.
HadSST4 imports data from gridcells containing ocean, excluding land cells. From past records, they have calculated daily and monthly average readings for each grid cell for the period 1961 to 1990. Those temperatures form the baseline from which anomalies are calculated.
In a given month, each gridcell with sufficient sampling is averaged for the month and then the baseline value for that cell and that month is subtracted, resulting in the monthly anomaly for that cell. All cells with monthly anomalies are averaged to produce global, hemispheric and tropical anomalies for the month, based on the cells in those locations. For example, Tropics averages include ocean grid cells lying between latitudes 20N and 20S.
Gridcells lacking sufficient sampling that month are left out of the averaging, and the uncertainty from such missing data is estimated. IMO that is more reasonable than inventing data to infill. And it seems that the Global Drifter Array displayed in the top image is providing more uniform coverage of the oceans than in the past.
USS Pearl Harbor deploys Global Drifter Buoys in Pacific Ocean
While many media outlets ran stories this week about a scientific paper suggesting that Penguin chicks in Antarctica are dying by the thousands (despite evidence suggesting they aren’t), the mainstream media ignored another story that shows an ugly episode of bullying of a science journal by prominent climate scientists who demanded that a peer-reviewed paper they didn’t like be retracted.
While many media outlets ran stories this week about a scientific paper suggesting that Penguin chicks in Antarctica are dying by the thousands (despite evidence suggesting they aren’t), the mainstream media ignored another story that shows an ugly episode of bullying of a science journal by prominent climate scientists who demanded that a peer-reviewed paper they didn’t like be retracted.
The paper, A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming, said in its abstract, “In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.” This single phrase likely triggered the demands by prominent climate scientists for the paper to be retracted. Yet that claim is true, supported by real world data and numerous conclusions presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report.
This is yet one more in a growing list of shameful episodes in the catalog of climate science calumnies. It features many of the same rogues gallery of climate researchers caught playing fast and loose with data and short-circuiting peer review in the infamous ClimateGate scandal of 2009, such as Dr. Michael E. Mann and Dr. Stefan Rahmsdorf who used their influence to get this paper retracted. Here is the notice from The European Physical Journal Plus, which has officially retracted the paper with this statement:
“Retraction Note: A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
The Original Article was published on 13 January 2022
Retraction Note: Eur. Phys J. Plus (2022) 137:112
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding the selection of the data, the analysis and the resulting conclusions of the article. The authors were invited to submit an addendum to the article, but post publication review of the concerns with the article and the submitted addendum concluded that the addendum was not suitable for publication and that the conclusions of the article were not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors. In light of these concerns and based on the outcome of the post publication review, the Editors-in-Chief no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions reported in this article.
The authors disagree with this retraction.”
Mind you the paper had already gone through peer review and the Editors didn’t cite any specific instance of the use of bad data or the drawing of unsupported conclusions, rather, it seems, unwanted attention from large mainstream media organizations and pressure from prominent outside researchers lead to a failure of “confidence” in the results. When they let “the science” through the peer review process decide, the paper was approved and published. When climate alarmism raised its ugly head objecting, the paper was retracted. This cowardly decision was the subject of Team Climate Crisis Resorts to Bullying, Againpublished at WUWT ten days ago. At that date, the paper was simply “under dispute”.
So, over a year and a half after publication, with over 40 citations, the paper is retracted at the behest of the “ClimateGate gang.”
The retraction by the relatively small and obscure journal The European Physical Journal Plus, and its prominent publisher Springer, shows a core problem in study of climate change: the corruption climate science in the pursuit of a political agenda.
Commenting on this instance of apparent cowardice in the face of pressure, Tony Thomas writes in Quadrant-online, How Science is Done These Days:
There’s nothing new about mainstream climate scientists conspiring to bury papers that throw doubt on catastrophic global warming. The Climategate leaks showed co-compiler of the HadCRUT global temperature series Dr Phil Jones emailing Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, July 8, 2004:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, a colleague] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Thanks to a science whistle-blower, there’s now documentation of a current exercise as bad as that captured in the Jones-Mann correspondence. This new and horrid saga – again involving Dr Mann – sets out to deplatform and destroy a peer-endorsed published paper by four Italian scientists. Their paper in European Physical Journal Plus is titled A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming and documents that extreme weather and related disasters are not generally increasing, contrary to the catastrophists feeding misinformation to the Guardian/ABC axis and other compliant media.
Calls for retractions began only after two Australian media outlets’, the Australian and Sky News Australia, reports on the study garnered more than 400,000 views and thousands of comments. Leading climate alarm promoters in the form of The Guardian, Agence France-Presse, and the Covering Climate Now, a cabal of some 500 media outlets with reach to a 2 billion audience, to respond with fury and publicly rake the journal over the coals.
To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.
The abuse of the peer review process documented here is remarkable and stands as a warning that climate science is as deeply politicized as ever with scientists willing to exert influence on the publication process both out in the open and behind the scenes.
Prominent climatologist Judith Curry, Ph.D. tweeted concerning the controversial retraction, “Reprehensible behavior by journal editors in retracting a widely read climate paper (80,000 downloads) over politically inconvenient conclusions. Journal editors asked me to adjudicate, and my findings were in favor of the author.”
There is good news though, the lead author of the retracted paper, physicist Gianluca Alimonti, from the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Milan, Italy, and one of his co-authors, Luigi Marian, an agrometeorologist, have published a new paper “Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?” in the journal Environmental Hazards. Their answer? No, they are not increasing. We will wait and see if this paper is targeted by the Climategate Gang as well.
The media silence on this ugly episode episode of scientific bullying speaks volumes about their preferences for the kinds of facts, scientific scandals, and truths they choose to report – and ignore.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute.
Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts.
He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues.
He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Tedros Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “The hottest month [July] just ended. We witnessed scorching heat, extreme weather events, wildfires, and severe health consequences.”
Tedros Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “The hottest month [July] just ended. We witnessed scorching heat, extreme weather events, wildfires, and severe health consequences.”
He added, “It’s a stark reminder of the urgent need for collective action to address climate change. Let’s use this alarming milestone to fuel our determination for bold climate action.
“Together, we can turn up the heat on sustainable solutions and create a cooler, more resilient world for generations to come.”
Myron Ebel, director and senior fellow at the Center for Energy and Environment, notes that while June and July were hot in many locations, others — such as Los Angeles with the 10th coolest June on recent record according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — experienced below-average temperatures.
On July 27, President Biden stated that “record temperatures — and I mean record — are now affecting more than 100 million Americans.
Puerto Rico reached a 125-degree heat index last month. San Antonio hit an all-time heat index high of 117 last month.”
Rather than citing actual temperatures where, according to the National Weather Service (NWS), Puerto Rico on the day referenced was 95 degrees — not 125 — since index measurements combine temperature and relative humidity.
According to the NWS, San Antonio’s 117-degree heat index that month resulted from just three days of 105-degree June 19-21 temperatures.
And whereas Houston experienced 10-degree-higher-than-average July temperatures, some rural Texas towns such as Water Valley at 99.8 degrees compared with a prior 97-degree average reflected little change.
Climatologist professor John Christy, director of the University of Alabama — Huntsville Earth Science Center, points out that, “Regionally, the West has seen its largest number of hot summer records in the past 100 years, but the Ohio Valley and Upper Midwest are experiencing their fewest.”
Dr. Christy, a former NASA scientist, observes, “For the conterminous U.S. as a whole, the last ten years have produced only an average number of records.
“The 1930s are still champs [for producing the most 100-plus temperature days in a year].”
Conveniently omitted in alarmist reports is U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) temperature data for contiguous states revealing that the number of days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (37.8 degrees Celsius), which peaked in the 1930s has been in an 80-year overall decline.
Bear in mind that this preceded the 1940s when World War II weapons industries released massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, global temperatures declined in fits-and-starts from the mid-1940s until the late 1970s, when most of the climate science establishment and media predicted the beginning of the next Ice Age with galloping glaciers threatening Manhattan.
A decade later, abetted by then-Sen. Al Gore’s feverish 1988 hearings in Congress in concert with the U.N.’s obsession with passing the Kyoto Protocol global wealth redistribution plan capping CO2 in developed countries — mainly the U.S. — its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared an opposite and imminent global warming emergency which continues to give a pass to China, the world’s largest emitter.
Whereas Christy and virtually all other informed climatologists fully recognize that climate obviously changes due to numerous complex natural factors and that a warming trend has ensued since the three-century-long so-called “Little Ice Age” ended in the mid-1800s, we shouldn’t confuse 30-year-long climate attributions with decadal and shorter regional weather patterns and occurrences.
Christie told the Epoch Times that global satellite readings he measured with meteorologist colleague Roy Spencer, which go back only to 1979, show that while last July was the warmest by about a quarter of a degree, an “early and strong El Niño” was a “major factor” in the increase.
The term “El Niño” refers to entirely natural, relatively short multi-year periodic events in the Pacific Ocean leading to warmer temperatures in North and South America, which are typically followed by La Niña’s that reverse results to cooler circumstances with trade winds that push warm water toward Asia.
All-in-all, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data does show that average global surface temperatures have increased by two degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) since the pre-industrial era (1880-1900), and few will argue that CO2 hasn’t had some (yet unmeasurable) contribution.
Confirming that recent satellite data shows global temperatures rising steadily at about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit every decade, Christy nevertheless emphasizes that we should understand that this current trend is bouncing back from the 19th century, one of the coldest in the last 10,000 years.
The Roman Warm Period two thousand years ago was as warm or warmer, as the Medieval Warm Period a thousand years ago — long before mankind introduced smokestacks and SUVs.
Let’s also be mindful that CO2 is essential plant food that satellites reveal is making our world greener, extending growing seasons, feeding more people and other of God’s creatures, and fundamentally extending and improving our lives.
And, whereas President Biden claims, “I don’t think anybody can deny the impact of climate change anymore,” where “the No. 1 weather-related killer is heat —600 people die annually from its effects,” he fails to mention that cold weather conditions kill far more each year.
According to the Breakthrough Institute, heat is responsible for about 500,000 annual deaths worldwide, while cold temperatures account for 4.6 million excess fatalities.
It’s also high time for Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus to come clean and set records straight on WHO’s botched information about COVID-19 before again misrepresenting facts about the weather.
CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston.
He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.”
Germany has been overrun with 30,000 giant industrial wind turbines and millions of solar panels. Its climate cult reckons that the wholesale environmental destruction wreaked so far is all about saving the planet. It’s an argument that holds all the logic of amputating an entire leg to prevent a septic toe from doing any further damage – when a dose of penicillin would do the trick.
Germany has been overrun with 30,000 giant industrial wind turbines and millions of solar panels. Its climate cult reckons that the wholesale environmental destruction wreaked so far is all about saving the planet. It’s an argument that holds all the logic of amputating an entire leg to prevent a septic toe from doing any further damage – when a dose of penicillin would do the trick.
Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans managed to lift the lid on green hypocrisy, focusing on the raft of inconvenient truths behind the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time. Now, a growing number of Germans are starting to catch on.
As Pierre Gosselin outlines below, there has been a radical shift in attitude among Germany’s academic class, and it’s all down to the local weather.
Expert Prof. Gerd Ganteför Calls For More Studies On The Regional Climate Impact By Wind Turbines No Tricks Zone Pierre Gosselin 31 May 2023
German online Reichschuster.de here reports on Gerd Ganteför, a German professor of experimental physics who taught at the University of Konstanz and Johns Hopkins University Baltimore (USA), among others. He has authored some 150 technical articles on renewable energies or climate change.
Ganteför has been an outspoken expert critic of Germany’s energy policy and the alarmist aspects of climate science. Recently the renowned expert once again asked uncomfortable questions about possible connections between wind parks and their impact on regional climate. The answers Ganteför gave to the German daily “Nordkurier” have raised some eyebrows.
In summary, the physicist warns: “We don’t currently know what all can happen if we continue to put up countless wind turbines.” The interview was prompted by a 2012 NASA study that suggested large wind farms in particular lead to an increase in the ambient temperature and are thus partly responsible for the warming of the climate.
Though Ganteför, has some doubts about this phenomenon, he nevertheless believes the “connection between wind turbines and global warming is possible – albeit for a reason not examined in the study,” reports Reichschuster.de “The authors were able to show that wind turbines swirl the cool layers of air that are directly above the ground and the somewhat warmer layers above them, and that this leads to an increase in temperature near the ground.”
Proven in other scientific publications Ganteför, however, focusses on another aspect: evaporation, which has been proven in other publications.
The mechanism goes as follows: “Large wind turbines logically slow down the wind by sapping the energy out of it. Less wind means less evaporation and thus less precipitation. And if it gets drier, it could just happen that it gets warmer.”
Overdoing wind energy Moist air from the North Atlantic plays a major role on Europe’s climate, and eventually makes its way over the sea to Germany. But that air gets slowed down by the relatively large wind farms in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, says Ganteför. The possible consequence: “If you overdo it with too many wind turbines”, the region “will become drier” and “this possible scenario needs to be meticulously played out and studied by climatologists.”
“We don’t know at the moment what all can happen if we continue to put up countless wind turbines,” warns Ganteför.
New studies warn Germany has so far installed over 30,000 wind turbines, which is about 1 every 11 sq. km. Plans are calling for doubling or even tripling the current wind power capacity. But this may be detrimental as new studies show that wind farms are altering local climates, and thus may be having an effect on global climate and contributing to regional droughts. We reported on this here earlier this month. No Tricks Zone
Austrian Biochemical Engineer: “No Energy Production Method Is More Damaging Than Wind Turbines” No Tricks Zone Pierre Gosselin 14 July 2023
As Germany and Austria rush to wean themselves off fossil fuels like coal and natural gas to produce electricity and replace them with weather-dependent wind and solar energy, the countries aim to substantially expand their fleet of wind turbines by 2040. Many would have to be installed near homes and in sensitive wildlife areas. e.g.the 1,000 -year-old Reinhard Forest.
In the AUF 1 interview, Hammer comments on the effectiveness and usefulness of wind power plants and offers a completely different view of what the entrenched politicians claim.
Damaging the local environment Hammer explains that one problem with wind turbines is that hey extract a massive amount of kinetic energy from the wind, which in turn leads to a windspeed reduction downstream from the wind park and air layers getting mixed. The higher layers of wind end up getting mixed with the layers near the surface. “Colder layers are getting mixed with warmer layers and that is having dramatic effects on the temperature, humidity, and on evaporation,” which leads to “drier conditions and even drought.”
“Economic nonsense” When asked about how realistic it would be to quickly go 100% renewable, Hammer characterized the idea as “economic nonsense, saying it would require an additional 19,000 turbines and large swaths of land that just aren’t available in Austria. No Tricks Zone
The climate change debate has been going on for so long now that I am quite sure that fatigue and boredom must be setting in on both sides. Sceptics have gained a reputation for raising the same points repeatedly, only to be told that their concerns have been answered so many times already, and the only thing that is preventing their moment of revelation is an inability to think critically, their insistence on cherry-picking favoured experts, and sheer bloody-mindedness. But sceptics have heard this all before, since these allegations are just one side of the endless game. And, sadly, it seems the fact that there can’t be anything new left to be said by either side isn’t going to lead to any form of truce in the foreseeable future. Must it therefore be the fate for both that they should plunge into the depths of the Reichenbach Falls locked in a deadly embrace? Perhaps some people were just made for each other.
Today I invite you to join me in taking one more spin on the merry-go-round of doom. And to achieve the right degree of vertigo, we will be returning to a very old topic indeed. In fact, it is a topic I covered in the very first article I wrote for Cliscep some 135 efforts ago. That article was called ‘The Scientist and the Bluebottle’ and it was written to challenge one of the oldest memes in the meme pool — the meme that we sceptics are anti-science and just don’t understand the scientific process. Back then I wasn’t challenging anyone in particular; however, today I will not be waltzing on my own. Today my dancing partner is Dr David Robert Grimes, who threw down the gauntlet by writing an article in the Guardian stating, ‘One scientist can be wrong. But deny the scientific consensus at your peril’.
So let the dance begin.
Dr Grimes started his career by researching into ultraviolet radiation physics, but it wasn’t very long before he somewhat astutely recognised that this wasn’t going to get himself known to a wider audience. So he quickly worked to establish a reputation as a public defender of The ScienceTM, bravely slaying a myriad of assailants who would variously take on the form of cranks, charlatans, conspiracy theorists, and ‘pseudo-sceptics’. It was in that role of defender of the faith that he wrote himself a book and became a fellow with the Committee for Sceptical Inquiry.
Of course, people who believe in ghosts, homeopathy and intelligent design are ready-made foils for the scientifically trained sceptic, and on that basis I wouldn’t normally pay a lot of interest to Dr Grimes’ work; I prefer instead to read things that can expand my understanding rather than simply confirm it. However, in his latest Guardian article he is taking on someone who you wouldn’t normally categorise as your average regular nut job – he’s having a pop at the former MI6 chief, Sir Richard Dearlove. And the reason why Dearlove has got Grimes all riled up is a comment that he made regarding artificial intelligence and the prophets of doom:
Reacting to grave warnings from some scientists over potential dangers of AI, Dearlove professed scepticism, reasoning that such dire predictions cannot be taken overly seriously given the failures of scientists on Covid.
What is so wrong with that, you might ask? Plenty, according to Grimes:
Such comments betray a common and insidious confusion over what science is and how it should be interpreted, and risk emboldening scientific denialists.
How so, David?
Part of the error stems from a mistaken conflation of “science” and “scientist”. Science is not an arcane collection of dogma but an active and systematic method of inquiry. Science pivots on making testable predictions, which are updated as new findings emerge, to reflect the totality of evidence. Scientific positions are always transient, subject to revision when stronger evidence emerges. All scientific knowledge is provisional, therefore scientific advice is prone to change and can evolve at dizzying speeds during periods of intense discovery.
So it appears that the failures to which Sir Richard referred were not failures at all but gobbets of scientific advice that were prone to change and evolve at dizzying speeds during periods of intense discovery. What we saw during Covid wasn’t scientists failing in their purpose but succeeding at a dizzying pace. How could Sir Richard have missed that? The answer to Dr Grimes is obvious. It must be because he is one of those ‘scientific denialists’ who doesn’t understand the scientific method.
Unlike Dr Grimes, I don’t see any reason to be so presumptuous regarding Sir Richard, because I am inclined to agree that some of the wildly changing advice wasn’t anything to do with evidence-driven success propelled at dizzying speeds, but the outcome of bickering between scientists who were too keen to formulate firm opinions based upon evidence that couldn’t possibly support them. Scientists are human, after all, and even Dr Grimes himself seems keen to make that point:
By stark contrast, scientists are people, susceptible to the same human flaws, biases and dishonest conduct as anyone else.
Which might lead you to suspect that Dr Grimes does understand after all. But alas no, because he follows up with this:
Such failures were brought into sharp focus throughout the pandemic, when a small but vocal cohort of fringe figures with scientific or medical qualifications peddled demonstrably false assertions, encompassing everything from Covid conspiracy theories to anti-vaccine propaganda. These positions were profoundly unscientific and readily debunked.
The conclusion is clear here. Human frailties can result in individuals drawing incorrect conclusions but the scientific method ensures that an authorised position based upon consensus cannot be wrong. Or, at the very least, it can be relied upon to the extent that current evidence and understanding supports it. It is only those who challenge the consensus that need to be treated with disdain, because, by implication, they are ignoring the evidence.
To see how Dr Grimes’ thesis works in practice let’s go back to the start of the pandemic, when Jenny Harries, then Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England (but not yet a Dame), came to the podium every night to answer questions from the press. On the subject of mask wearing, her message was clear: the science tells us that wearing a mask would not help and would probably increase the risk. And then one day, completely out of the blue, she came to the podium and declared that we must all wear masks as a matter of the highest importance – the science says so. Prior to that announcement, anyone proclaiming the importance of face coverings was being anti-scientific. After the announcement it was those who continued to oppose masks who carried that stigma. Dr Grimes would have you believe that this is completely okay. It was all evidence-driven and to not join Harries in her U-turn would be to fail to understand how science works. As he puts it:
While a cynical reading of seeming volte-faces like this might be that science “got it wrong”, such interpretations fail to comprehend that science does not profess to offer inerrant truths, but rather continuously adapts with best evidence.
Of course, evidence is often not that binary. The science behind the wearing of a face covering was, and remains, highly speculative with a great deal of controversy and a plethora of disputed studies. The same goes for so much more regarding the Covid pandemic and the various interventions. The truly scientific approach in many instances would be to simply admit our levels of ignorance and not lean too much upon a consensus that is, at best, influenced by evidence though hardly driven by it. Yes, I agree that all scientific conclusions are subject to uncertainty, but there comes a point when the uncertainty should preclude the drawing of conclusions; yet too often it doesn’t. In this instance, Harries wasn’t saying there isn’t enough evidence to support mask wearing; she was saying that the evidence is against it. The next day the situation was reversed.
When I wrote my first Cliscep article I reflected upon my decision to forgo a glittering but largely fantasised scientific career. I describe my prospects this way:
In reality, I was destined to become nothing more than a fact-sniffing bluebottle, seeking out the truth by joining the swarm of scientists buzzing above whichever epistemic turd had the most compelling aroma.
That, I suspect, is the fate for most of those who ply their scientific trade; the swarming instinct is very strong. This human tendency to collect around popular ideas that receive official backing is something to be wary of, and I’m not at all sure that Dr Grimes is. I find his trust in the ability of the scientific method to create a reliable consensus to be naive. And yet he is only saying exactly what I used to say when I was his age. In his case I suspect it is because he has spent too much time focussing upon the human frailty of contrarians and how that has led them astray, rather than reflecting upon how human frailty can also operate socially, to the point of creating consensus that is anything but evidence-led.
But it isn’t as though history hasn’t provided him with plenty of examples. Was the erstwhile dominance of the frequentist paradigm over Bayesianism within statistics evidence-led? Is the fact that Bayesianism now holds sway the result of new information coming to light? Is the now almost total dominance of string theory within the institutes of foundational physics due to it being evidence-led? After all, there isn’t a single scientific experimental result available to support the theory. Was the emergence of a dominant Deutsche Physik in the early 1930’s evidence-led? Was there any reliable rationale behind the supposed inferiority of ‘Jewish physics’? Did data cause Lysenkoism to thrive? There couldn’t possibly be a better example of an anti-scientific dogma than Lysenkoism, and yet it came to be the consensus view as far as the scientific authorities in the USSR were concerned.
I first came across the notion that ‘there is science and then there are scientists’ many years ago when I read Bart Kosko’s book on the development of fuzzy logic (‘Fuzzy Thinking — The New Science of Fuzzy Logic’). He even dedicated a chapter to the distinction. Fuzzy logic, in its early days, met with much opposition from traditional statisticians brought up on binary logic. And yes, there was much human frailty on show within the scientific community. But it wasn’t those few cranks and contrarians who proposed fuzzy logic that were at fault. It was the scientific majority that Kosko was complaining about. Science said that fuzzy logic was a valid idea, but the scientists were saying no. This is the way it can be sometimes. Scientists are indeed just people, susceptible to the same human flaws, biases and dishonest conduct as anyone else. But the idea that this can lead to some individuals going off the rails, whilst the railroad can always be trusted to be headed in the right direction, simply underestimates the capacity of human frailty. Maybe Dr Grimes will come around to my way of thinking when he too grows older and more cynical. Maybe he too will join the ranks of his ‘scientific denialists’. However, I somehow doubt that. It would be like the Pope becoming an atheist.
Regular readers will know that I have often queried the windspeeds claimed nowadays for hurricanes.
The problem stems from the fact that in the past windspeeds were estimated on the basis of central pressure. Certainly anemometers would never have been able to withstand the strongest winds; nor would they have been likely to have been in the exact location where winds were strongest.
In recent years however winds are estimated using satellite and aircraft dropsonde data.
The problem, however, is that consistently we find that windspeeds and central pressure do not reconcile in the same way as they did in the past.
Idalia came ashore with sustained winds, so we are told, of 125 mph, and a central pressure of 949 MB.
The chart below plots the windspeeds of all US landfalling hurricanes with central pressure of 948, 949 and 950 MB at landfall:
As is instantly obvious, nearly all those historical hurricanes had estimated winds of between 100 and 115 mph. The oddity is the 1926 hurricane which was said to be only 75 mph, but had central pressure of 949 MB.
But sticking out like a sore thumb is Idalia, with winds of at least 10 mph higher than any others. This clearly cannot be right.
If it is true that Idalia really did have 125 mph winds, then clearly all of those hurricanes in the past have been grossly underestimated.
The figure of 125 mph came in this instance from a Hurricane Hunter aircraft, but it is worth noting that Keaton Beach, where landfall was made, the weather station there only recorded 61 mph:
Two hurricanes in the 1920s utterly devastated Florida:
The 1926 Great Miami Hurricane
This storm razed much of Miami to the ground, and is reckoned to be the costliest Atlantic hurricane of all time, at current prices, even more so than Katrina.
But according to the US National Hurricane Center, it also made landfall with winds of 125 mph just like Idalia, despite much lower central pressure of 930 MB.
Two years later, Florida was hit by another catastrophic hurricane, which had already decimated Guadeloupe, destroying nearly every building there and killing over 1000 people.
Coastal South Florida saw catastrophic damage as well, the heaviest in Palm Beach County. Towns greatly affected were Jupiter, Delray, Lake Worth, Pompano, West Palm Beach and Palm Beach, all of which were impacted by the hurricane’s 3 m (10 ft) storm surge. In West Palm Beach, 1,711 homes were destroyed and 6,363 more were damaged. The greatest devastation occurred, however, along the south shore of Lake Okeechobee. There, the 3 m (10 ft) surge washed over the lake’s 1.5-2.4 m (5-8 ft) dikes and flooded an area 120 km (75 mi) wide. At Belle Glade, one of the hardest hit areas, the floodwaters rose to a height of 2.1 meters (7 ft) at a rate of about 25 mm (1 in) per minute. In all, between 2,500 and 3,000 people died making this hurricane the second deadliest hurricane in U.S. History after the 1900 Galveston Hurricane. Total damages from the storm amounted to $100 million (1928 USD) across the Caribbean and the US.
It is interesting that at the time windspeeds at landfall were estimated at 150 mph. But since this has been downgraded by the National Hurricane Center to 125 mph, despite central pressure of 929 MB.
Was Idalia truly as strong as these two storms? Did they all have 125 mph winds?
It is clear that the damage wrought by Idalia was not on the same scale as the 1926 and 1928 ones. Indeed most resulted from the storm surge, which we know was much lower. There’s a CBS video from Cedar Key, which was hit hardest by Idalia, and which shows may buildings barely damaged at all.
This together with the central pressure data tells us that it is absurd to claim that Idalia was as strong.
by Vincent Courtillot, Jean-Louis Le Mouel and Fernando Lopes
Sources of variability of some terrestrial and solar phenomena.
As former members of the geomagnetism department at IPGP (Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris), we have always retained an interest in solar-terrestrial relationships. Being in charge of geophysical observatories, we have always paid the foremost attention to long series of observations and as a consequence to methods of time series analysis. As of some five years ago, we have undertaken a systematic study of several long series of observations recorded around the globe (“long” means from several decades up to three centuries).
The research program has been quite productive, with the publication of some 24 articles in the past five years (all freely available online; references at the end of this note). The papers have been published in a very diverse set of journals, mostly in geophysics and astrophysics (in a broad sense). Because we came from the solid Earth geophysics community, it was not always easy at first to be recognized. Thus, we published in those journals where our French IPCC colleagues published, such as Cryosphere or Earth and Planetary Science Letters, MDPI or Frontiers. As a result, readers may have found it uneasy to grasp the wider picture. This short note is intended to try and draw this wider picture, to stress some of its consequences in the spirit of the paper’s title, and to give full references to the papers published in the frame of the program.
We have first determined the spectral content of many long series of observations, using either the Wavelet Method (WM) or Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA). These series include global mean temperature and pressure of the lower atmosphere, a number of climate-related indices, solar activity through sunspots, length of the day, geomagnetic indices, extent of high latitude sea-ice, and more… SSA allows one to decompose (in a way that a posteriori makes sense) a time series into a smooth trend and a series of components characterized by specific periodicities or pseudo-periods, based on which the series can be filtered and reconstructed.
We first applied the method to the series of sunspot numbers. The series could be satisfactorily reconstructed from simply a (rather flat) trend and two components with periods 11 years (Schwabe cycle) and 90 years (Gleissberg cycle). More interestingly, these components allow one to construct a precise and robust model of solar activity and to predict (so far rather accurately) the ongoing sunspot cycle and beyond [ref 1, 2, 3].
We have next determined the SSA components of the length of day (or Earth’s rotation velocity) and motions of our planet’s pole of rotation. To the Schwabe and Gleissberg cycles could thus be added the Hale (~22 years) and Jose (~160 years) cycles [ref 4, 5, 6]. We also analyzed tide gauges and sea-level change [ref 7, 8]. In all these series we could recognize the signatures of the four Jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune): i.e. their periods of rotation and many of their “commensurable” periods. This argues for a mechanism involving exchanges of angular momentum between the Sun, Earth and planets. Variations in the inclination of the rotation axis due to this coupling in turn affect insolation, much in the way exemplified by Milankovic cycles at much longer periods (from tens of thousands to millions of years). We propose to extend the concept of Milankovic cycles to the much shorter periods we have analyzed [ref 9, 10].
The main components mentioned above are common (in whole or in part) to all the series we have analyzed [ref 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. The fact that these series of components are found in the rotational mechanics of the planets and in many Earth-bound phenomena argues for a causal (forcing) relationship that can only work one way. The components one finds in sea level, pressure, temperature… must arise from a causal chain going (1) from Jovian planets to the Sun (or directly to Earth), then (2) to inclination changes in Earth’s rotation axis, with (3) consequences on insolation changes (therefore climate), sea level and tides [ref 8, 10, 17].
We note that trends could actually correspond to still other pseudo-periodic components with much longer pseudo-periods (longer than the data interval). As a result, we argue that a very large part of the geophysical and atmospheric variations covered by the series we have analyzed appear to have an external origin (astronomical or gravitational). The perturbing effects of the giant planets correspond to a remarkable set of frequencies [ref 5, 19] that modulate (force) solar activity, variations in inclination of the Earth’s rotation, many terrestrial parameters among which sea level, oceanographic indices, sea – ice and finally temperature. These components have in general not yet been modeled.These works shed light and are in turn illuminated by the works of giants, the Legendre, Laplace, Lagrange and Poisson, who revolutionized geophysics [ref 25, 26, 27, 28]. The core of their elegant physics explains well the careful observations gathered in the past 200 years.
The first results of our research program have been discussed in an informal seminar at the Paris Academy of Sciences last May. Some 20 academy members attended and a lively open discussion followed. We hope this open, truly scientific attitude prevails.
About the authors. Vincent Courtillot (courtil@ipgp.fr) and Jean-Louis Le Mouël are both emeriti professors of Geophysics at University of Paris, members of the Paris Academy of Sciences and former directors of Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris. Fernand Lopes (lopesf@ipgp.fr), also formerly at IPGP, now at Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, is a Research Engineer with a PhD in geophysics and a specialty in computing, inverse problems and time series analysis.
JC note: This is an important body of work, addressing many “known unknowns” in the climate system. I encourage you to pick a paper, read it, and comment on it.
Papers published in the frame of this research : • [ref 1] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2017). Identification of Gleissberg cycles and a rising trend in a 315-year-long series of sunspot numbers. Solar Physics, 292(3), 43. • [ref 2] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2020). Solar turbulence from sunspot records. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492(1), 1416-1420. • [ref 3] Courtillot, V., Lopes, F., Le Mouël, J. L. (2021). On the prediction of solar cycles. Solar Physics, 296, 1-23. • [ref 4] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D. (2019). On forcings of length of day changes: From 9-day to 18.6-year oscillations. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 292, 1-11. • [ref 5] Lopes, F., Le Mouël, J. L., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D. (2021). On the shoulders of Laplace. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 316, 106693. • [ref 6] Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D., Mouël, J. L. L. (2022). On two formulations of polar motion and identification of its sources. Geosciences, 12(11), 398. • [ref 7] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2021). Sea-Level Change at the Brest (France) Tide Gauge and the Markowitz Component of Earth’s Rotation. Journal of Coastal Research, 37(4), 683-690. • [ref 8] Courtillot, V., Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Gibert, D. (2022). On sea-level change in coastal areas. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(12), 1871. • [ref 9] Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D., Le Mouël, J. L. (2022). Extending the range of milankovic cycles and resulting global temperature variations to shorter periods (1–100 year range). Geosciences, 12(12), 448.
• [ref 10] Courtillot, V., Lopes, F., Gibert, D., Boulé, J. B., Le Mouël, J. L. (2023). On variations of global mean surface temperature: When Laplace meets Milankovi\’c. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03442. (in sub) • [ref 11] Courtillot, V., Le Mouël, J. L., Kossobokov, V., Gibert, D., Lopes, F. (2013). Multi- decadal trends of global surface temperature: A broken line with alternating~ 30 yr linear segments?. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 3, 364-371.
• [ref 12] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2019). A solar signature in many climate indices. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124(5), 2600-2619. • [ref 13] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2019). Singular spectral analysis of the aa and Dst geomagnetic indices. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124(8), 6403-6417. • [ref 14] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., & Courtillot, V. (2020). Characteristic time scales of decadal to centennial changes in global surface temperatures over the past 150 years. Earth and Space Science, 7(4), e2019EA000671. • [ref 15] Dumont, S., Le Mouël, J. L., Courtillot, V., Lopes, F., Sigmundsson, F., Coppola, D., … Bean, C. J. (2020). The dynamics of a long-lasting effusive eruption modulated by Earth tides. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 536, 116145. • [ref 16] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V. (2021). A strong link between variations in sea-ice extent and global atmospheric pressure?. The Cryosphere Discussions, 1-28. • [ref 17] Lopes, F., Zuddas, P., Courtillot, V., Le Mouël, J. L., Boulé, J. B., Maineult, A., Gèze, M. (2021). Milankovic Pseudo-cycles Recorded in Sediments and Ice Cores Extracted by Singular Spectrum Analysis. Climate of the Past Discussions, 1-17. • [ref 18] Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., & Le Mouël, J. L. (2022). Triskeles and Symmetries of Mean Global Sea-Level Pressure. Atmosphere, 13(9), 1354. • [ref 19] Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D., Le Mouël, J. L., Boulé, J.B (2022). On pseudo- periodic perturbations of planetary orbits, and oscillations of Earth’s rotation and revolution: Lagrange’s formulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07213. • [ref 20] Courtillot, V., Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Gibert, D. (2022). On the nature and origin of atmospheric annual and semi-annual oscillations. Atmosphere, 13(11), 1907. • [ref 21] Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D., Mouël, J. L. L. (2023). On the annual and semi-annual components of variations in extent of Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice. Geosciences, 13(1), 21. • [ref 22] Le Mouël, J. L., Gibert, D., Courtillot, V., Dumont, S., Ars, J., Petrosino, S., … Geze, M. (2023). On the external forcing of global eruptive activity in the past 300 years. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09564. (just accepted in Frontiers in Geosciences) • [ref 23] Courtillot, V., Boulé, J. B., Le Mouël, J. L., Gibert, D., Zuddas, P., Maineult, A., … & Lopes, F. (2023). A living forest of Tibetan Juniper trees as a new kind of astronomical and geophysical observatory. arXiv e-prints, arXiv-2306. (in sub) • [ref 24] Le Mouël, J. L., Lopes, F., Courtillot, V., Gibert, D., & Boulé, J. B. (2023). Is the earth’s magnetic field a constant? a legacy of Poisson. Geosciences, 13(7), 202.
Thunderf00t
You must be logged in to post a comment.