Climate Change – Ebb and Flow of the Tide – Part 3 of 3

By Kelvin Kemm – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Dr Kemm’s complete essay containing all three parts may be found here.

The Pause Century

40. There has been essentially no global warming during the 21st Century. This reality has been called ‘The Pause’ by some, who claim that the real rise in temperature is actually going on, but that for some unexplained reason, has paused for a while.

There is debate about the ‘Pause,’ with some saying that there were gaps in data; the variations are too small to be statistically significant; etc. If this is so, how come climate change enthusiasts have been so utterly certain of their position and their figures for the past 20 years plus.

41. Initially ‘Global Warming’ was the only public phrase used. Then when ‘warming’ predictions did not occur, the term ‘climate change’ was introduced. So the late 2017 freezing conditions on the US East Coast were attributed by many groups to ‘Global Warming’ because they pointed out that the ‘warming’ was really causing the cold ‘climate change.’ (Note all the Al Gore global warming jokes and cartoons which started to appear in magazines, as cartoonists and journalists started to absorb the irony). Note: As a physicist I know that changed thermal balances in the atmosphere can lead to altered winds etc, which can lead to cooling etc. So there is some scientific basis to arguments that temperatures can go up and down. But frozen airports and other extreme weather is not climate change. It is ordinary extreme weather. Many years ago author Mark Twain, whose real name was Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835–1910), said: “Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.”

42. The concept of ‘Extreme Weather’ was also introduced by green extremists to add to the public fear factor. In fact; weather records (worldwide) show no evidence of any weather today that is different to the past couple of hundred years or more. The period over the last century of the highest incidence of hurricanes striking the US coast was the 1940’s. Large hurricanes striking the US coast over the last few years were not unusual, but by bad luck a couple of them happened to strike particularly highly populated areas, resulting in dramatic TV footage.

From 1876 to 1879 a terrible drought struck China, resulting in their worst famine ever, which killed over 10 million people. If that happened today it would be blamed on industrial CO2.

43. You cannot measure the ‘severity’ of a weather event by the magnitude of the insurance claim. Insurance claims have been used by Greenpeace et al, to try to ‘prove’ that unusual extreme weather is leading to greater devastation than before.

44. It is scientifically well-known that the Sun varies in intensity and in magnetic activity. This variation takes place on a Solar Cycle which is linked to the incidence of Sunspots. Sunspots have been regularly scientifically recorded since 1760. But they were observed regularly well before 1760 as well.

45. Sunspots were first formally observed through a telescope by Galileo and Thomas Harriot in December 1610. A year later in March 1611, Johannes Fabricus, a medical student in Leiden in the Netherlands discovered them independently and then some months later became the first to publish a scientific paper about them. This showed scientifically for the first time that there was variable activity on the Sun, because the Sunspots moved. As time passed, astronomers discovered that the Sunspots exhibited a cycle; and then in 1843 astronomer S H Schwabe was the first to describe the 11-year Sunspot Cycle that we know of today. However in ancient China, back in the 12th Century BC, observers mentioned black spots on the Sun, while the first written record of them in China occurred in 28 BC, but even the ancient Aztecs in South America had referred to them as well. So, solar magnetic activity has existed forever. From modern observatories and space probes we now know that solar activity is extremely violent.

46. There is other scientific evidence of long term solar radiation and magnetic variation around the planet, such as in geological structures and botanical evidence. The well-known Northern Lights (Aurora Borealis) over the North Pole, and the Southern lights (Aurora Australis) over the South Pole, occur as a result of electromagnetic particles ejected from the Sun.

47. Variations in the activity of the Sun produce a number of effects on earth, but we will here consider two of them. Heating, as a result of light and IR; and magnetic field variations.

48. The Sun brightens and dims slightly over a solar cycle. The resulting variation in heating and cooling of the Earth is not sufficient to account for the observed global warming. (of about 0.8C since the time of the Crimean War.). Some people like to discount the effect of the Sun, out of hand, due to this fact that the heat and light variation cannot account for temperature variations on the Earth.

49. It has been known for decades that vast amounts of charged particles and nuclear particles stream out from the Sun. This is known as the Solar Wind and it travels far past the Earth. The Earth is permanently bathed in this massive Solar Wind. It is well known that the Solar Wind affects radio communications on Earth and is known to be a potential danger to astronauts in space, if some large unexpected particle ejection takes place. It is also well known that the Solar Wind varies.

When electrically charged particles interact with magnetic fields, this action induces complex changes in the magnetic field which alters its strength; and deflects the particles.

50. The variation of the Sun’s magnetic field and the resulting variation of the Earth’s magnetic field, due to the interaction of the two, is significant. Mounting evidence is indicating that this appears to be sufficient to cause the observed global warming.

51. The total amount of Sunspot activity is known to vary over the 11-year solar cycle. It is also known that the number of Sunspots is an indicator of total magnetic activity. Sunspots are actually giant magnetic storms on the Sun. So now knowing Sunspot records to varying degrees of detail way back thousands of years, it is possible to generate records of solar magnetic influence on the Earth, over a long period of time.

What we discover is that the variations in the solar magnetic activity match up rather accurately with the observed temperature variation on the Earth. They clearly match up with the MWP and the LIA. There are also matches with the Roman Warming and the Minoan Warming periods. In fact the temperature of the Earth for the past few centuries matches the solar magnetic activity graph far better than does the CO2 concentration graph. Such scientific evidence should cause scientists and scientifically interested lay people to take serious note of this match with solar magnetic activity.

52. Continuing on from the scientific consideration of No.49: see the work of Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark on this matter. See also his book: The Chilling Stars.

Svensmark (and others) have shown that the variation of the penetration of cosmic rays (as in charged particles) through the Earth’s atmosphere is directly linked to the strength of the magnetic shield around the Earth. The Earth’s shield is linked to solar activity. Solar activity is indicated by Sunspot Number.

53. Svensmark has shown that cloud cover is linked to the incidence of Cosmic Rays coming from deep outer space. This is standard physics. Nucleation points in the atmosphere give rise to vapour condensation, such as the vapour trails seen behind high-flying aircraft. The aircraft engines emit charged particles and bits of pollution, such as soot, which act as the nucleation points.

Cosmic rays coming in through the atmosphere also create nucleation points in the atmosphere in a similar way. They also give rise to clouds.

54. There is a correlation between the MWP, LIA and the modern warming, which links to the solar activity far better than these temperature variations correlate to any concentration of atmospheric CO2.

There is therefore no logical scientific explanation to imagine that atmospheric CO2 is any more of a factor in observed global warming than is the Earth’s magnetic field variation induced by the Sun.

Yes, Look at the Sun

55. So why do the human-induced global warming proponents dismiss the Sun’s influence out of hand. Is this scientific?

56. There have been well-known manipulations in so-called ‘evidence’ for CO2 being the cause of global warming. For example; the case of the notorious ‘Hockey Stick Graph’ which the IPCC promoted to a great extent and then very quietly dropped. The Hockey Stick data later became the subject of criminal court proceedings in Canada. The whole thing continues in the courts with accusations that should never have to come about in real science.

The Hockey Stick had already been shown to have been incorrect when Al Gore still incorporated it in his movie: An Inconvenient Truth.

57. Another example is the ‘Climategate’ scandal when dishonest emails were uncovered. From this incident came the phrase ‘Hide the Decline’. When ‘hoped for’ global warming did not occur, and temperatures instead declined, certain scientists plotted how to ‘hide the decline’ to fool the public.

58. The observed conclusions arrived at from the work of Svensmark (and others) is that a weak magnetic shield around the Earth allows more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere. They induce more cloud. More cloud prevents the Sun’s natural heat from reaching the ground. This causes the Earth to be cooler, leading to global cooling.  A stronger magnetic shield leads to global warming, due to less cloud shield thus allowing the ground to absorb heat and so heat up the atmosphere generally.

The MWP, LIA, and modern warming (and lack of during the 21st Century) link well to Sunspot number and magnetic field variation.

Linkage to CO2 concentration is very poor and any actual causality cannot be shown. It is inferred because of the existence of a Greenhouse Effect (No.11), and the physics of IR windows (No.14).

59. Organisations such as Greenpeace and other similar ones have pushed hard to ‘save the planet,’ from an increase in CO2 emissions. This call is only meaningful if there is someone to blame. The blame has been directed at industry in general and the burning of fossil fuels in particular.

60. Since ‘saving the planet’ is a very honourable-sounding cause to strive for, it is easy to gain many supporters. It would be a very inconvenient truth to have to admit that observed global warming is entirely natural and is caused by the Sun. Also, that this has happened often before.

Even more awkward is that global warming periods have been associated with health, welfare and economic progress, whereas cooling periods (like the LIA) are associated with crop failures, disease, famine and economic failure. (see state of Europe during the LIA – well documented).

61. So now we have a huge political boulder rolling down the hill – save the planet – stop industrial CO2 production. Interestingly the same extreme green people say ‘stop nuclear power’ because their goal is to reduce all power production, to limit industrial growth – to save the planet, because industrial growth produces CO2.

62. Nuclear power now finds itself in the interesting position that it is (sort of) benefitting from the ‘reduce CO2’ mantra because nuclear produces no CO2. ‘Sort of’ because the CO2 proponents try to say that nuclear power does produce some CO2 when you factor in Uranium mining, fuel transportation and so on. This is a case of grasping at almost invisible straws. They do not then reference the CO2 produced in the production of solar panels and wind turbines. What about mining the silicon? What about the production of all the concrete for thousands of wind turbine foundations. How about the transport of thousands of huge wind turbines all over the world? It is silly to tally all this up for a CO2 argument. It is also silly to argue Uranium mining as a CO2 output for nuclear power.

63. I could go on a lot more, but the bottom line (lines) of all this is that some global warming occurred over the period from the Crimean War to now, but it also happened during the MWP. The link to CO2 at all is tenuous, let alone a link to anthropogenic CO2 being the cause.

The magnetic field of the Sun does alter cloud cover. Cloud cover does affect temperature. Temperature over past centuries links well to solar activity, so why discount the potential solar effect now.

The only answer is that it is politically expedient for certain organisations to have anthropogenic CO2 as ‘the fault’ because there is then someone to blame, tax and control.

A large scale popular consensus in favour of the theory of anthropogenic CO2 damaging the planet just does not exist amongst qualified people who count. See for example this letter to President Obama, of which I am a signatory:

At that time President-elect Obama said: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” (President-elect Barack Obama, 19 Nov 2008). This statement of his was just not true and it prompted the letter to Obama.

There are a number of other such letters and petitions in similar vein, which can be found after a bit of searching, but sadly they are mostly ignored by the popular media.

Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too. Voltaire (1694–1778)

So Where are we Wandering to?

The whole global warming and climate change social phenomenon going on around the world is an interesting occurrence in human psychology. It is a mixture of science; psychology; mysticism; politics; and group adherence. The challenge is to separate one from the other.

Without doubt, where we find ourselves now is that calls for CO2 reduction are a political force, whether the argument is scientifically valid or not. However, what is inescapable is that outcomes resulting from the climate change debate are having a massive economic and social impact on societies around the world. There are calls from the greens to drastically reduce air travel and to ban the eating of red meat, supposedly to ‘save the planet.’  Many of these moves seem to be aimed at the wealthier segments of society and so gain some sympathy, but frequently some of the hardest hit are those who work in these industries, and also people in developing societies in Africa and elsewhere.

People in developing societies are the ones who are told to not emulate ‘the foolish first world who use too much energy,’ and instead of using a tractor and metal plough to prepare the land for crops, to use an ox and a handmade wooden plough, because that is ‘living in harmony with nature.’ They are also told that such action avoids using polluting diesel fuel, and does not emit CO2 from the tractor exhaust. I have been present when European greens have told rural African women to carry water from the river in buckets and not to use diesel or electrical pumps, to save the CO2 emissions.

Nations which are less than 20% electrified are told to limit electricity expansion and to use intermittent solar and wind power to advance their economies into the 21st Century. Where is the morality in this?

Of course we need to protect our planet, it is our home.  But we need to address the real problems such as the problems of litter clogging rivers, irresponsible chemical emissions into waterways, the massive international rhino and elephant poaching operations which most green organisations seem to ignore, the massive fishing operations of some countries which plunder the coastal strips of other countries, so depriving the locals of their traditional source of income. In Somaliland some of these impoverished fishermen who found their fish stocks virtually wiped out by foreign fishing fleets, turned to piracy on the high seas instead. It is not moral for first world countries to curtail or block mining operations in African countries which export raw materials, but then to tell them to import computers and TVs from the first world.

It is not moral to induce developing countries and others to become dependent on energy from wind turbines which are supplied by only a few first world companies. Even more immoral is when this is done on the basis of claims of a scientific legitimacy and consensus when in fact this claim is highly suspect and in many cases demonstrably incorrect.

It is really bad when gangland tactics are used to attempt to silence opposing voices, to the point at which scientists and media editors are dismissed from their jobs for contradicting an alarmist climate political position on climate claims. For centuries the concept of the truth of genuine science and of true logical thought has been championed. It is time that those honourable objectives are given genuine stature. We need to get it right.


Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategist based in Pretoria, South Africa. He is CEO of Stratek Business Strategy Consultants. He does consultancy work in strategic development in energy, and also in other industrial and business systems.



One thought on “Climate Change – Ebb and Flow of the Tide – Part 3 of 3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s