Points well made but having never heard of Heartland before it didn’t take very long at all for their website to fail my sniff test. I didn’t look at any third party sources, least of all WiCIApedia, because I could see where their agenda was coming from. Snap judgement, for sure.
Vaping is being framed as a harm reduction tool? I’ve never tried it but the sweet and sickly flavours on offer suggest to me it’s a form of kiddy crack. Like those alcopops, Smirnoff Ice, etc: a gateway drug if you like.
You could well be right - they all probably contain nicotine and so you end up addicted to them as with the gum. But are they better than fags , just another thing we don’t know I suspect.
But of course the reason we ended up discussing this O/T stuff is my fault - I fell for the diversion and deflection trap - where the subject matter is ignored because the messenger has become the subject matter.
This whole subject of Climate Change is being used today to subject all of us to a bunch of feudal overlords so I think we ought to rise above accusations of scum, hypocrisy, and blathering on - and get into the real meat of the issues:
Why haven’t we got a reliable system in place to measure the Earth’s average global temperature for the most appropriate height? If the answer is we can’t do it with certainty then how do we measure the level of certainty we do have, and who does the measuring of that certainty? If we can’t do it for the present then how can we say what the temperature has been or will be in the future? Is this why we have problems with hockey sticks, “Pauses”, Mediaeval Warm Periods and regularly amended measuring systems?
Why can’t we agree on the physics and calculations of radiation transfer which seem fundamental to any theory of man-made CO2 causing climate warming for past present and future? Starting with the people I came across through our forum - Denis Rancourt, Valentina Zharkova and Hermann Harde all regard this area of science as conclusively reducing AGW through CO2 to negligible levels. And yet discussion of the subject matter has again been deflected by accusations against the first 2 scientists and ignoring the last one.
I have focused my posts mainly on Zharkova given that she has put forward hypotheses based on the work of many other scientists in the past whose work seems not to have been challenged covering not just astro-physics but also the physics of plasma and electromagnetic planetary systems. This is not the sort of stuff one can easily sort out down the pub with a few mates, so we have to in the end make personal judgement calls on the scientists who translate all this into digestible elements. Zharkova seems not to have an agenda beyond her personal reputation after 40 years of work in the subject and the fact that so many “alarmist” ( if we can call them that) scientists on the IPCC bandwagon have sought to rubbish her ideas gives her an under dog status that I intuitively side with.
Her ideas appear to have been developing over the last decade based on the central subject of the Sun. She has pointed to the work of many who have established several key cycles of activity of the Sun in relation to the impact on the Earth. Observations going back millenia have been preserved in certain records so as to establish some of these cycles - Zharkova has used physics and astronomy to support those observations and come up with propositions that firmly establish some key elements to the solar and planetary cycles which ultimately challenge the IPCC and its focus on AGW.
So VZ is looking at 3 main cycles, afaik :
the 11 year solar cycle which she explains arises from the 11 years it takes the Sun to switch its North and South polarities creating a constant dynamo effect in relation to its electromagentic systems - including the rise and fall in the Sun’s background radiation emitted and the numbers of sunspots over the same periodic cycles. These cycles create increases in Earth’s received energy at varying degrees of intensity - the lower the number of sunspots and background radiation the less the Earth’s temperature increases and vice versa.
The 350 to 400 year cycle in which Solar energy emitted to the Earth increases and then decreases in intensity creating peaks and troughs. VZ focuses on these cycles looking at the impact of troughs for example in the period 1645 to 1715 called the Maunder Minimum when temperatures in the Winter dropped to levels where e.g. the Thames was frozen over.
VZ says that most of the warming of the Earth over the last 300 years has been due to this cyclic increase in Solar activity since the end of the Maunder Minimum .
VZ now considers we have entered the Modern Global Cycle which she estimates will lead to a cooling period during the first cycle in 2030’s and 2040’s and a colder later period in the second cycle . Followed by a return to the warming levels of the 20 th century.
finally there is the longer cycle she has been looking at - a 2000 year periodic cycle which currently runs from 600 to 2600 AD or CE. She believes that this cycle which has not been examined by the IPCC from the earth warming perspective is responsible for our increased warming in the period from 1980’s to the start of this Modern Global Cycle. This would explain why temperatures have been increasing whilst solar activity has been falling -here it gets tricky because VK attributes this extra warming to a change in the proximity of the Sun to the Earth based on her calculations of the rise and fall of energy patterns in this cycle. In the absence of any increased solar activity the increased energy received by the Earth in such regular and rigid patterns over the decades can only be related to gravitational influences of the Sun and the major planets. She has examined the ephemeris an historical log of planetary movements over the cycles , and she says they confirm her suspicions.
The interaction of these different periods does not radically change VZ’s views that we will have a period of cooling in 2030 to 2040 and warming thereafter followed by a another longer period of cooling before returning to a warming phase until 2600 at similar rates to the period from 1700 to 2000.
I have most likely mixed up some of the reasoning in relation to the different periods - I still have to fathom a lot of this stuff from scratch including getting a grip on radiation and electromagnetic energy as well as the impact of cosmic rays in periods where our solar system’s gravity changes to allow these to impact our upper atmosphere thereby affecting our cloud patterns. And of course no-one appears to have a grip on the amount of cooling our cloud patterns contribute to the picture or the impact of oceanic currents!
There’s a lot to take on board - but if we can look at the information rather than the informants we might begin to see the light a bit quicker ( )
By the way, it’s now about 40C where I am in south west France. This is not unusual at this time of year.
In June and into July we had a lot of rain; which has been unusual.
We are coming out of the solar minimum, and plants are chucking out huge amounts of pollen, by way of compensation. Not good if you suffer from Hay Fever.
Other than that, unless you read CNN, the BBC, SKY, or any other of the bullshit/corporate broadcasters, you are not going to die anytime soon.
I have to agree ChrIs: a lot to take on board and get clear - and often this has to be done by lay investigators; people outside the ubiquitous hyperspecialised career-bubbles: the trend for knowing more and more about less and less, and only having about six colleagues in the entire world in the same bubble.
Also, the matter is complicated further by a whole lot of uncertainty. And by horrendously GIGO-prone computer ‘modelling’ - more properly, speculating.
This is not a discussion for emotional denunciations over differences of interpretation (as the Left splinters are so addicted to indulging, in politics…!). It’s absolutely a field which demands an open mind - kept open with determination, despite all the hectic certainty that’s getting proclaimed everywhere. (“For like the hectic in my blood he rages!” as Claudius says about Hamlet.)
If for no other reason, the knowledge that gics are trying to make the climate thing yet another opportunity for increasing their obscene wealth, and the unjustified power that goes with it, makes it a no-brainer to suspect en bloc and absolutely all the ersatz ‘certainties’ that are getting thrown about over the climate issue. You expect that from mediawhores and pocket-politicians. But lately it’s become starkly clear that scientists and other ‘honour’ professionals are highly susceptible to the same corruptions. Think of that former editor of the NEJM who reckons that virtually all ‘scientific’ doctrine produced in medicine in recent decades is junk science, primarily the product of palm-greasing (aka ‘funding’ by the tune-calling piper-payers), and of probably zero reliability. I’d say the same may well go for climate science; something we should suspect, on the precautionary principle, anyway.
Clearly, certain trends are common-sense observable, such as the drying up of the USAmerican SW, as P posted on just now, and as Greer has been predicting for some time; and my own lifetime practical observation that the weather in Britain is now palpably just a bit warmer than it was in my childhood. But such clearly factual observations are barely adequate to support an entire baroque system of speculation about near-future climate catastrophe - with lots of highly iffy ‘science’ thrown onto the balance pan gratuitously.
Hi folks, I forgot to mention the point raised by Zharkova about the impact of the Sun’s uv emissions on our weather patterns due to the changes made to the ozone layer which in the Northern Hemisphere results in a decay in the gulf stream and with it big changes in weather patterns see here around 36 minutes in:
note Zharkova tells us that this was discovered by Shindell et al in 2001.
GKH, from what I hear from other parts of the UK they’ve had rain.
The south east uses huge amounts of water. You could venture that hosepipe bans, et al, are mostly due to incompetence/corruption by the licensed crooks who run the utility companies (and part of their franchise is to play along with ‘climate crisis’). The same can be applied to winter floods. It’s hard to deny that for most of the year it pisses down with rain in the UK.
I don’t know how old you are. Should I mention the summer of 1976, when we had two and a half months straight of very hot weather and not a drop of rain. Not only were there hosepipe bans but many places in the country didn’t have household water. We had to use standpipes in the streets.
After that long, hot summer the weather finally broke and it went back to pissing down with rain nonstop.
As an aside, the drought of 1976 was also against a background of economic and political turmoil.
)