Category Archives: Climate Models

A Forecast Of Global Cooing For The Remainder Of The Century

Dr. Norman Page believes that natural cycles of 60 and 1,000 years are the principle drivers of Global climate.  He has recently published a study relating his beliefs.  From that study  “The coming cooling: usefully accurate forecasting for policy makers” I will begin with one of his charts:

Here Dr. Page compares forecasts by the IPCC, another forecaster S. Akasofu and his own.  The IPCC  forecast which you have probably seen many time predicts a global temperature rise of 4C by 2100.  Akasofu is much below the IPCC forecast at about 1C by 2100.  Page’s forecast is for a reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.

Dr Page’s Abstract to this paper lays out the big picture:


This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and  correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”

The four basic trends in play here according to Page:

“To summarize, the forecasts which follow rely on four basic working hypotheses. First, the solar millennial activity cycle peaked in 1991+/- as seen in Fig 10 in the Oulu neutron count. Second, the corresponding millennial temperature cycle peaked in the RSS data at about 2004-Fig. 4.Third, the 60 year temperature cycle peaked at about the same time and fourth, Ockham’s razor would suggest that the simplest working hypothesis currently available, based on the weight of all the data, is that the trends from the 990 Millennial peak to the 2004 Millennial cycle peak seen in Figs 3 and 4 will, in general, repeat from 2004 to 3004.”

Those charts are as follows:

Figure 10 has had some enhancements so I am showing you that chart.  Note how the cosmic ray theory/clouds cooling are illustrated.


Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003.6 (14)

Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003.6.


Fig.3 Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012. (9) (The red line is the 50 year moving average.)

Good view of the 1000 year cycle that Page refers to.

Dr. Page also predicts the next Little Ice Age  will likely occur about 2640+/-

Page’s  study is about 15 pages long but is definitely  worth your time to read it.


Russian Scientists Suggest Global Temperatures Will Drop

There are two recent papers indicating that global cooling will begin soon.    Both studies believe that more cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere will be responsible for reduced global temperatures. The cosmic rays produce lower level clouds which reduce temperatures by reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space.


“Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’ Climate is by a group of Russian scientists led by Y.I. Stozhkov.  The Paper considers Milankovich theory on global temperatures but dismiss it for this study saying that “…… (Milankovitch) changes happen on a long -term scales and are unlikely to be related to the contemporary process of global warming.”  The three orbital factors in this theory are:

  • the Earth’s orbital eccentricity which changes or 100,000 to 400,000 years
  • the tilt angle of the Earth’s rotational axis which has about a 41,000-year cycle
  • the precession angle changes with periods of 19,000 to 26,000 years

They considered solar luminosity but feel that the changes in total solar irradiation (TSI) are too small to alter average global temperature by no more than 0.05C.

The study also looked at the cosmic  rays.  The team compiled  monthly Δ T* data for the period from 1880 to early 2016.  Using that data, they made a spectral analysis for the same period.  The result is shown on the chart below:     (*Δ T often called the “temperature anomaly”.)

The team looked at cosmic rays versus Δ T and found a relationship.  Cloud formation is a function of cosmic ray presence in the Earth’s atmosphere. That is illustrated from the team’s chart shown below:

The team interestingly does not attribute cosmic ray intensity in the Earth’s atmosphere to solar activity.  The study reports:

“Another influence on the Earth’s climate is solar activity; the main period of its variations is ≅11 years. Despite numerous attempts to find a connection between different solar activity indices and temporal variations in delta T values, no such link has been firmly established.”

Their contribution is —-an increase in cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere will lower global temperature. Thus, leaving the reason the cosmic rays increase or decrease as an unknown. Their Figure 1 seems to suggest they see a drop in global temperature beginning soon and lasting until at least 2060.


The second study will be posted next.


Correcting Harmful Wind Energy-Related Policies

The following are 5  Master Resource postings examining opportunities of the Trump Administration to correct harmful wind energy-related policies,


U.S. Wind Energy Policy: Correcting the Abuse in 100 Days (Part I)      2/2/17


Federal Energy Efficiency Mandates: DOE’s End Run vs. the Public Interest (Part II)

By Mark Krebs and Tom Tanton — January 31, 2017


Big Wind: Threat to Air Navigation, Military Assets (Part III)

By Lisa Linowes — February 16, 2017


DOE: Breaking the Federal Arm of the Wind Industry (Part IV)

By Lisa Linowes — February 23, 2017


Wind Energy and Aviation Safety (Part V)                        3/02/17



Wind Energy Simply Won’t Work–Google Engineers Say

The following 6 postings discuss renewable wind energy (and some solar). The postings are ones that I think will interest the reader.  The publishing dates range from 2017 back to 2011.


Renewable energy ‘simply WON’T WORK’: Top Google engineers



James Delingpole Hammers the Great Wind Power Fraud: ‘Green Energy is a Charter For Crooks And Liars’            1/19/17



Benny Peiser: Europe Pulls The Plug On Its Green Future


Green Power Gridlock: Why Renewable Energy Is No Alternative    10dec13


The myth of renewable energy           22nov2011


Study: Wind & Solar up to 5X More Costly than Existing Coal and Nuclear    7/26/15



More Alarmist Predictions That Did Not Happen

When you next read in your newspaper that global warming will visit some terrible thing upon you, try to think back to any of the predictions of doom that have ever really taken place.  

From time to time I have posted, prediction after prediction made by the alarmists that have failed to come true. In the meantime, I write letters to the editors asking why they continue to publish the latest warmer prediction. I ask, “do you ever, (the editor of the newspaper), review the alarmist’s previous predictions”? 

Enough of that. Here are a new batch of predictions that haven’t come true.  The following is a reblog of Not A Lot Of People Know That posting titled “April Fools”:

Continue reading

Friends Of Science Engineering Critique Of WWS’s Plan For Global Decarbonization

The previous posting, examined the study “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization” published in the Science magazine,  and discussed the major obstacles the warmers face in their attempt to persuade the politicians and the voters to undertake decarbonization.  And do it rapidly.   You may not think thirty years is rapid, but convincing 8 billion people to wipe out the present infrastructure and substitute a new one using as yet unproven methods in 30 years, is moving at a breathtaking speed.

The above noted study, is not the only one that has looked at a way to satisfy the Paris Agreement of holding the global temperature to max.2 ºC rise, with a goal of 1.5ºC rise.  A study by 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS) led by Jacobson, Delucci , et at. is, on the surface (number of pages of detailed discussion), more elaborate than the previous posting.  This  WWS roadmap calls for an 80% reduction of fossil fuels by 2030!  Only 13 years away.

The WWS study is an all-sector roadmap that is said to show how 139 nations could jointly hold the temperature rise to no more than 2ºC.

Friends of Science critique the WWS study with a response titled “WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050” .  Michael Kelly, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Cambridge says: “Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality”.

That’s what guides this critique.  The critique illustrates the enormous number of new renewable facilities needed, the time necessary to put  these facilities in to operation and the amount of space they require.  It is awesome.

Continue reading

Dr. Judith Curry Believes the RoadMap to Zero CO2 Emissions Is Infeasible.



I have promised some critical views from skeptics regarding the Paris Agreement Roadmap to zero CO2 emissions by 2050.  If you need to get up to speed regarding  the Paris Agreement Roadmap,  please review my last two postings. 

Let’s begin with Judith Curry’s thoughts on this topic from her posting of 25 March titled A roadmap for meeting Paris emissions reductions goals”.

JC reflections

Apart from the issues raised in this paper, there are several other elephants in this room:  there is growing evidence of much smaller climate sensitivity to CO2; and even if these drastic emissions reductions occurred, we would see little impact on the climate in the 21st century (even if you believe the climate models).

I think that what this paper has done is important:  laying out what it would actually take to make such drastic emissions reductions.  Even if we solve the electric power problem, there is still the problem of transportation, not to mention land use.  Even if all this was technically possible, the cost would almost certainly be infeasible.

As Oliver Geden states, its time to ask policy makers whether they are going to attempt do this or not.  It seems rather futile to make token emissions reductions at substantial cost.

Deciding that all this is impractical or infeasible seems like a rational response to me.  The feasible responses are going with nuclear power or undertaking a massive R&D effort to develop new emission free energy technologies.  Independent of all this, we can reduce vulnerability from extreme weather events (whether or not they are exacerbated by AGW) and the slow creep of sea level rise.


Dr. Curry’s remarks are very succinct.  To be a success, the roadmap requires many inventions that to date have been sought after but not delivered.  And she points out, as noted in this blog on a number of occasions, the climate sensitivity used by the warmers gives temperature increases that are unsupportable.  This roadmap is necessary in large part because it is predicated on those exaggerated temperatures the climate models produce.  That is Dr. Curry’s “elephants in the room.”

And she thinks it is way too costly.  I believe she is spot on.

Dr. Currys posting can be accessed this link

Some additional comments to follow in the next posting.