I was looking up the value of debating the other day, apparently debating is good for us because it fosters critical thinking, persuasive communication, and the ability to analyse complex topics from multiple perspectives. It empowers individuals to articulate their thoughts clearly, defend their viewpoints, and challenge opposing ideas respectfully.
Most everyone can tell me their theory of climate change, they just can’t always explain to me why temperatures at Greenland – at least at Nuuk – increased by some 4 degrees Celsius between 1880 and 1940, only to cool again.
In his book ‘Climate Present, Past and Future’ Hubert Lamb, a past Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia, wrote about carbon dioxide and the decline in temperatures after 1945 that:
The Observed decline of global temperatures since 1945 implies some other factor exercising about three times as strong an effect (in the opposite direction) as the C02 increase. (page 46)
Of course, more recently the powers that be, most particularly scientists at the CRU have remodelled the 1940s ‘blip’ out of the climate record, and so there is nothing to explain. They prefer this to debating.
The consensus view is now that there was a steady and mostly linear increase in temperatures through the twentieth century.
More recently, Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has been saying that he aims to take control of Greenland, and that Canada should become the 51st state of the US, and he has directed the US military to reclaim the Panama Canal. I have always been interested in the temperature record for Greenland, that like many very northern locations it shows warming from at least 1880 to 1940, then cooling to 1980 and then warming to the present.
Indeed, most temperature series – before they are remodelled for political purposes to show slow and steady warming through the twentieth century – show significant warming and then cooling though the pattern tends to vary regionally.
Another one of the temperature series that puzzles me is Darwin. I was born in Darwin at the General Hospital on 26th August 1963, the maximum temperature recorded on that day was 29.6 degrees Celsius. This value has since been changed to 28.8 degrees Celsius – a drop of 0.8 degrees – ostensibly to ‘correct’ the record.
The day before the city was bombed by the Japanese, on 18th February 1942, a maximum temperature of 31.1 degrees Celsius was recorded – subsequently changed to 30.1, a drop of 1.0 degrees Celsius.
The official record of remodelled temperatures for Darwin, as held by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology begins on 1 January 1910, on that day the maximum temperature was measured as 34.2 degrees Celsius, but the remodelled value incorporated into global datasets is 32.8 degrees Celsius – a difference of 1.4.
Those in positions of authority claim that a mean global increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius will be catastrophic, all the while adjusting down the historic record to almost that much exactly.
An important philosophical principle in traditional science states that no more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary. It is often referred to as ‘Ockham’s Razor’ after an English Franciscan friar and philosopher, William of Ockham (c. 1285–1349). If there is no evidence of systematic errors in the raw temperature measurements, then there is no need to make any adjustments down.
There is no scientifically justifiable reason to remodel the numbers as recorded at Darwin, yet that is what they do. The further back I go in time the more the numbers are adjusted down giving the impression that it is getting hotter and hotter at Darwin, where I was born, simply by cooling the past more, and more and more.
Eventually when all the numbers are assembled, they show what could be described as steady increase. That is the hype.
When I compile the series for Darwin – there is no one long continuous series because temperatures were first recorded at the post office and subsequently at the airport – it is the case that there is statistically significant cooling of 2.4 degrees Celsius from 1895 to 1941. This is quite different from the situation at Nuuk, Greenland. The Darwin record, however, is consistent with other long maximum temperature series for other locations in northern and eastern Australia.
I assume the regional variation, including between Nuuk and Darwin, is at least in part a consequence of the position of these particular landmasses relative to ocean currents and also climate zones. (I have very much appreciated recent correspondence from George Angus suggesting I consider the Koppen-Geiger maps as I attempt to explain climate variability and change. Certainly, the distribution of the greenhouse gas water vapour is more consistent with this classification system than is carbon dioxide.) What else?
On Saturday, I have my first solo Zoom as part of the series I began last December variously called ‘How Climate Works’, ‘Towards a New Theory of Climate Change’ or more provocatively ‘My New Theory of Climate Resilience’.
The first Zoom was an interview with Bill Kininmonth about how convection in massive anvil clouds prevents the tropical oceans from overheating, and my second Zoom was an interview with Ivan Kennedy suggesting, amongst other things, that the constancy of seasonal variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide as measured at Mauna Loa, is more consistent with the overall annual increase being from ocean degassing. Indeed, I would now go as far as to suggest that fossil fuel derived carbon dioxide is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. Never mind all the hype.
Anyway, I am very grateful to everyone who has already subscribed for the Zooms on Saturday, there are three sessions. So far there are nearly 50 subscribed for the first session, ‘Calling Home’, more than 20 subscribed for ‘Calling London’ and more than 10 subscribed for ‘Calling Houston’.
As homework, I would be keen for everyone who has subscribed to one of these sessions to think about how they might describe the time series data from Nuuk, and also Darwin, in terms of how they understand climate variability and change. To be sure, I am keen to hear about different theories of climate variability and change and how they can provide some explanation of the patterns of change at Nuuk and also Darwin.
If you haven’t yet subscribed, following are the links to the Zoom Sessions. I hope to be able to discuss and debate these issues with you in person online this Saturday.
SESSION NO. 1. CALLING HOME
When: Mar 13, 2025 12:00 PM Brisbane
Register in advance for this meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/8G7Ze9hSRmG4x1MNbVCvvg
SESSION NO. 2. CALLING LONDON
When: Mar 29, 2025 11:00 AM LONDON [9pm Brisbane time]
Register in advance for this meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/AEic7FtGR0-1pprt-EDz8w
SESSION NO. 3. CALLING HOUSTON
When: Mar 29, 2025 03:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada) – [6am next day for me]
Register in advance for this meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tHsbs5CmRYuR4pnrAXiKOg
My brother Matthew and me, a little to the south of Darwin, some years ago.
Just as there are NO 'decadal ' oscillations.....there are NO '11 year' Solar Cycles;
As Alex S. Gaddes explained in 'Tomorrow's Weather' (1992), the Solar Sunspot 'Cycle' is not a 'true cycle' – but a 'wave frequency', with a value of 11.028128 years, (No.4 Constant,)which when multiplied by 27 d (Solar Rotation Rate at the Latitude Zone of the Sunspots,) results in 297.76 years,(the Full Solar Cycle of Sunspots.)
When this 297.76 years is divided by 4 (Seasonal Obliquity, No.2 Constant,) we obtain a Solar Sub-cycle of 74.44 years or 4 X 18.61 Lunar Metonic Cycles.
In order to establish accurate 'predictors', precise mathematics must be used.
Sea level rise, not a problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Holocene_sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/video-promoted-by-john-stossel-for-earth-day-relies-on-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-about-climate-change/
'The aim in a debate is to win ...’
Not necessarily, debate helps us to recognise reality without bias interfering. Rationalising both sides of an argument will ultimately lead to better outcomes.
‘ ... claimed climate was not warming?’
We cannot deny that it has warmed a little, but in the full scheme of things its minuscule. The Holocene is coming to an end and sadly CO2 cannot stop the return of a mini ice age.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Frankly it becomes very tedious to be plagued by people who deliberately misquote in order to disrupt.
I never said that the climate is not warming. I merely consider that it is a pretty normal feature of the Earth's hot and cold cycles. It it cools it can warm, and if it warms it can cool. Nothing odd about that. It is best to get facts straight before making spurious claims. I wonder what money I am supposed to be following? I would love to know as I seem to have missed out on something.
On Ozone:
The comment about ozone holes being a natural feature is correct.
Contrary to common belief, the ozone layer is neither stable, nor constant thickness. Atmospheric measurements by satellite and weather balloon, show that it varies seasonally, with greatest variation at the poles and least at the tropics. It is thickest in late winter at the poles, despite weak solar irradiance and contrary to expectation. It has also been shown that the layer over the Antarctic depletes during late winter to the extent that it forms a ‘hole’ in late November around the time of the break-up of the cold winter vortex. It varies over longer periods, possibly linked to 11-year solar cycles.
Numerous studies have been undertaken to try to determine how much thinning of the ozone layer would be detrimental, especially the increase in UV light. Two reports were issued in 1976, one by the UK Department of the Environment in April and the other by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in September. Both agreed with studies that suggested that a 10% reduction in thickness would have only minor impact.
The Montreal Protocol in 1987, that to the ban on production of CFC ozone-depleting chemicals by 1996 was based on cherry-picked and therefore unrepresentative data.
In 1988 a summary of the “Report of the International Ozone Trends Panel” was released. This study found that the ozone layer in northern latitudes had depleted up to 3% between 1969 and 1986. This was reported at a press conference to be much faster than computer modelling of future CFC effects, so alarm was created, and gave the desired impetus to the new CFC ban. The required evidence had supposedly been found. However, the complete report was only published three years later and showed that the evidence was flawed. The ozone measurements spanned the period 1957 to 1986 and showed significant variation. The summary and press conference in 1988 referred only to the ozone thickness peaking in1969 and then declining steadily thereafter – supposedly evidence for the impact of CFCs. In fact, the layer thickened from 1957 to 1969, thinned from 1969 to 1983 and then started to thicken - natural oscillations. The thickening up to 1969 was not mentioned in 1988. The data was essentially falsified. A period of only 29 years is in any case completely unrepresentative of climate trends.
The UN and a small group of countries insisted that the ban should be imposed even in the absence of direct evidence for ozone depletion. However i was only done when profitable alternatives for companies like Du Pont were available. So, even if the banning of CFCs did not have any impact on refrigeration it has been used as a justification for banning fossil fuels for which there is no immediate alternative and thus the comparison if false. It also shows how the UN and its subsidiaries are prepared to use falsified and invented 'data' to further its political goals.
On DDT:
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a study in 1970 which noted the possible environmental hazards but also cautioned against excessive conclusions as in two decades DDT had been responsible for the saving of an estimated 500 million lives that would otherwise have been lost to Malaria. DDT alternatives were more expensive and hazardous – a tricky choice. Bans on DDT have contributed to significant increases in avoidable cases and deaths of the related diseases Malaria and Dengue Fever. Both are caused by mosquito bites. The WHO reports the number of dengue cases increasing from 500,000 in 2000 to 5.2 million in 2019. Lack of DDT is the most likely cause. Of course the eco-loons blame climate change, except in many of those affected regions the climate (or to be more precise the weather) has changed only imperceptibly.
Those 'caring' individuals who campaigned to have DDT banned have much to answer for. But of course Africa was a long way away from them and burnishing their politically correct credentials was far more important. It is one example of many where devotion to extreme ideologies and obsessive causes results in so much completely avoidable damage.
There is NO 'hole in the Ozone Layer'....there never was. The perpetrators of this myth have since admitted as such.
Ozone (O3) is produced constantly in the atmosphere ( See Metal/Steam Reaction,) it moves (and fluctuates) with the rest of the atmosphere,(due to Axial Spin.)
Karen on the question of ozone depletion, Dupont made a motza.
I reckon its a natural, seasonal phenomenon.
'During the peak of ozone depletion season from September 7 through October 13, the 2024 area of the ozone hole ranked the seventh smallest since recovery began in 1992 ...' (NASA)
Thanks Peter.
Remember when "they" claimed lead was good for you? Remember when "they" claimed DDT was harmless to the environment. Remember when "they" claimed smoking was good for you. Remember when "they" claimed CFCs didn't affect the ozone hole? Remember when Etherington-Smith claimed climate was not warming?
Follow the money.