Skip to content

The Geological Society of London’s Statement on Climate Change

January 17, 2018

By Paul Homewood


Euan Mearns has a post up about the Geological Society of London’s two recent Statements on Climate Change, which he has asked me to publicise:




Both statements by the Society centre around the contention that concentrations of CO2 and other gases in these bubbles follow closely the pattern of rising and falling temperature between glacial and interglacial periods.

They then go on to use this assumption to project large temperature increases as a result of higher emissions of CO2.


Euan forcefully points out the fundamental flaw in this argument, in his opening comment:


First of all I’d like to thank Dr Colin Summerhayes, his co-authors and the Committee of the Geological Society of London (GSL) for agreeing to this on-line discussion of The Society’s statement on climate change. However, I strongly disagree with much of its content.

The two main issues I have are as follows, which I will deal with in greater detail in separate comments. What I conclude from the data is that there are two strong forces that modulate historic climate cycles 1) Earth’s orbit, especially the 41,000 y obliquity cycle and 2) variations in the geomagnetic activity of the Sun resulting in quasi ~ 1,200 year cycles known as Bond or Dansgaard- Oeschger (DO) cycles (barely mentioned in the GSL statement but with more detail in the addendum). Most of the observed climate change of the Holocene can be attributed to this ~1200 year solar cycle. The action of these primary strong forces, mainly obliquity, causes climate to change and this in turn causes the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere to change. Albedo of high latitude and high altitude areas also changes, via the formation and collapse of ice sheets. Green house Gases (GHG) and albedo may well cause positive and negative feedbacks but they are demonstrably weak forces easily overridden by the strong.

The general observation that GHG fluctuate with temperature over geological time needs to be interpreted with great care. The GSL Statement recognises the difference between cause and effect but then seems to lapse into the illogical position that GHG variations are primary causes of climate change. This is an illogical trap first created by Petit et al in their seminal paper on the Vostok ice core [1]. The fact that we currently have “unprecedented” 400+ ppm only has great significance if dCO2 is the primary cause of climate change which it has not been for the last 2.5 million years.

Ice cores

The GSL statement says this:

The concentrations of CO2 and other gases in these bubbles follow closely the pattern of rising and falling temperature between glacial and interglacial periods.

This is simply untrue. Petit et al recognise that this is untrue but then proceed with an interpretation that imagines that it is.

The Vostok Ice Core provides one of the finest geochemical records ever assembled and provides key data on what actually drives Earth’s climate in two ways.

1) At the glacial inceptions CO2 lags temperature by up to 14,000 years. This is a massive lag where full glacial conditions are established before CO2 begins to fall. This demonstrates that CO2 is not a significant driver of climate change during glacial periods. It simply follows temperature, closely at the terminations but with large time lags at the inceptions. The climate science community, starting with Petit et al, have simply brushed this key information under the carpet. The political, social and economic consequences of this error are too vast to imagine.

2) At the main turning points of the Vostok temperature curve, at the temperature high, CO2 reaches a maximum and albedo a minimum. If these variables were significant drivers it should simply continue to get warmer, but the exact opposite happens. The strong force – obliquity – simply sweeps these weak forces away. At the temperature minima, the opposite occurs. The stage appears set for the whole world to freeze, but what happens next is the ice sheets collapse.

The Sun

The GSL statement does not mention the role of the Bond / D-O cycles at all. It does say this:

In addition, the heat emitted by the Sun varies with time. Most notably, the 11-year sunspot cycle causes the Earth to warm very slightly when there are more sunspots and cool very slightly when there are few.

This is a gross misrepresentation of facts as they are understood. Bond cycles are recorded as cyclical variations in sediment composition in the North Atlantic. D-O cycles are recorded as temperature variations in Greenland, but not Antarctic, ice cores. Similar cycles are also recorded in carbonate stalactites in Oman. In every case, these cycles correlate with fluctuations in the cosmogenic isotope record, either 14C  or 10Be. This tells us that it is variations in the geomagnetic field strength of the Sun that controls these climate cycles – NOT feeble variations in total solar irradiance stemming from sunspots!

The 2013 addendum does however correct this omission but does not present the cosmogenic isotope data faithfully:

Before the current warming trend began, temperatures in the Holocene (the last 11,000 years) were declining. This was due largely to insolation – the solar radiation received by the Earth’s surface – and dictated by the Earth’s orbit and the tilt of the Earth’s axis. Insolation declined throughout the Holocene. This cooling took Earth’s climate into a Neoglacial period, culminating in the ‘Little Ice Age’ (1450 – 1850).

The addendum goes on to say:

The changes in solar output can be detected via isotopes of carbon and beryllium produced in the upper atmosphere when solar activity is weak, and extracted from tree rings and polar ice cores 34. These fluctuations do not coincide precisely with palaeoclimatic events like the Medieval Climate Anomaly (although solar output was high during part of that time) or the Little Ice Age (during which there were some periods of minimal solar output).

This seems to be an attempt to undermine the veracity of the isotope record. Bond cycles do not leave a significant mark on global average temperatures. But, their action does cause climate to change everywhere. Some areas warm while others cool. This is most likely down to a change in the pattern of atmospheric circulation from zonal to meridional. Research from the UK Met office has shown how changes in the spectral output of the Sun can control the pattern  of atmospheric circulation [2].

We know the more recent Bond cycles as the Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages cold period, The Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age (LIA) and the modern warm period. The LIA was not a single cold event during the Holocene but one of several cold events. The fact that the LIA ended was due to the Sun coming back to life and probably has nothing to do with CO2 at all.

Climate Sensitivity

Finally, I want to touch on climate sensitivity. The 2013 addendum says this:

Geologists have recently contributed to improved estimates of climate sensitivity (defined as the increase in global mean temperature resulting from a doubling in atmospheric CO2 levels). Studies of the Last Glacial Maximum (about 20,000 years ago) suggest that the climate sensitivity, based on rapidly acting factors like snow melt, ice melt and the behaviour of clouds and water vapour, lies in the range 1.5°C to 6.4°C.

This is a bizarre and astonishing claim. The main thing that strikes me is that climate science community doesn’t seem to have a clue about the impact of CO2 on temperature. 1.5˚C is probably harmless, perhaps beneficial. 6.4˚C probably catastrophic. This provides zero basis for energy policy development.

I suspect the reason for this chaotic message is that variations in glacial temperature have been wrongly attributed to variations in CO2, which as we have already established, varies in response to temperature. Temperature  in turn results from changes in obliquity. Ice core data cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity.

A study of UK climate records I did jointly with Clive Best suggests climate sensitivity closer to a harmless 1.3˚C.



The full post can be read here.

I find it hard to believe that a team of supposedly top geologists have not been able to work this out for themselves. Instead they seem to have been blinded by global warming groupthink.


This paragraph from the 2010 Statement rather neatly sums up their false logic:

When was CO2 last at today’s level, and what was the world like then?

The most recent estimates [35] suggest that at times between 5.2 and 2.6 million years ago (during the Pliocene), the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reached between 330 and 400 ppm. During those periods, global temperatures were 2-3°C higher than now, and sea levels were higher than now by 10 – 25 metres, implying that global ice volume was much less than today [36]. There were large fluctuations in ice cover on Greenland and West Antarctica during the Pliocene, and during the warm intervals those areas were probably largely free of ice [37,38,39]. Some ice may also have been lost from parts of East Antarctica during the warm intervals [40]. Coniferous forests replaced tundra in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere [41], and the Arctic Ocean may have been seasonally free of sea-ice [42].

The clear logic is that temperatures then were the result of higher CO2 levels, and that we will likely see similar temperature rises now.

Yet it is well accepted that higher temperatures lead to higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Indeed, if the GSL’s logic was correct, we would have ended up with runaway global warming on many occasions in the past.


My understanding from Euan is that some of the geologists in the Society are actually very concerned about the Statements and fake science that lies behind them. So hopefully the more this issue is debated, the better it will be.

  1. Ian Magness permalink
    January 17, 2018 1:06 pm

    Thank you for this expose Paul and Euan.
    As someone who originally trained as a geologist (I was actually a Fellow of the GSL for a few years (lapsed due to change in career) and my personal tutor at University was the first woman president of the GSL), I am simply embarrassed by this. In truth, I cannot see that anybody trained as a geologist and who has studied the facts could believe in AGW. Geology teaches you that the climate has changed constantly for billions of years and always will do. Further, whilst I am still only in touch with 3 geologists from my university, all 4 of us are absolute deniers – we think it’s all nonsense!
    Those that have followed the virtue/signalling green political party line at the GSL should resign and go back to college.

    • January 17, 2018 2:43 pm

      My wife trained in geology. Although at first she accepted wehat she was told by the BBC about the role of carbon dioxide in driving temperatures, input from me and then re-reading her old text books soon convinced her that AGW was a load of crock.

  2. January 17, 2018 1:16 pm

    It’s no secret that warming oceans cause outgassing of CO2, while cooling oceans cause absorption of it.

    It’s an essential part of the carbon cycle – surely the ‘experts’ know this?

  3. Max Sawyer permalink
    January 17, 2018 1:24 pm

    Don’t let the facts spoil AGW – far too much political and financial capital invested in it.

  4. Gerry, England permalink
    January 17, 2018 1:53 pm

    The first paragraph says ‘geographical’ and not ‘geological’.

    • January 17, 2018 2:07 pm

      Fix your typo Paul

    • January 17, 2018 5:27 pm

      Thanks. Now fixed

      • Gerry, England permalink
        January 18, 2018 1:41 pm

        I wonder what the relationship between the two societies is? Still, if you get a geological sample through your window, Paul, you’ll know.

  5. Velcro permalink
    January 17, 2018 2:02 pm

    What a cop out. The deep water passage through Panama closed 2.6 Myear ago. This changed ocean circulation patterns, initiating the Pleistocene Ice Age in which we live today. We have cycled in and out of glacial stages some 40 times since then, and are presently somewhere near the end of the Holocene interglacial. Thus to compare present conditions with pre Pleistocene (ie Pliocene) CO2 levels, temperatures and sea levels is to compare apples and pears.
    Over geological time the correspondence between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures is very poor – thus demonstrating that increasing CO2 levels does not automatically cause runaway global warming.
    I am a PhD geophysicist who has worked in both industry and academia in that profession for more than forty years.

  6. January 17, 2018 2:04 pm

    The simple truth is that we are in the middle of a Great Ice Age called the Pleistocene Ice Age not at the end of it. Some day indeed, we will see the end of this Great Ice Age millions of years from now and the world will warm up and the ice will melt. But that will be a good thing. The past has shown that life outside Great Ice Ages thrive both in the quantity and diversity of species. The warming will not make the world intolerably hot but rather normalize the temperature (winter/summer, night/day, polar/equatorial). Within a Great Ice Age there are warm periods called Interglacial periods that tend to last for 10,000 years and cold periods called glacial periods that last for around 100,000 years. Our present Interglacial period called the Holocene began around 11,700 years ago. So we are living on borrowed time. The CO2 cycle lags the temperature cycle, therefore the CO2 cycle is driven by the temperature cycle rather than the other way around. As the temperature rises, the vast quantities of CO2 that are stored in the ocean are released into the atmosphere (solubility theory). The true danger is not warmth but rather the return to extreme cold, the return to the next glacial period, because extreme cold produces starvation conditions. It is very likely that we will lose half of the human population due to starvation when we return to the next glacial period.

  7. Nordisch-geo-climber permalink
    January 17, 2018 2:12 pm

    It is time for Geol Soc Lond and many other elevated professional/academic societies and business/energy groups like RS, IOD etc to stop chasing the money, stick by firm sceptical scientific principles and show us why CO2 changes climate.

    No one has ever achieved this. They can not do it I believe. Ergo it should not be part of government policy.

    These groups must retract their statements, cut their lobbying, keep out of the debate unless they can prove their case with the mass of observational data.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      January 17, 2018 2:38 pm

      Whilst I am at best a Lukewarmer, I’m not sure I agree with your statement regarding government policy. There are times when the science is less than certain but it still makes sense to take political actions.

      If CO2 emissions could cause a serious problem, and if reducing such emissions could be done with little or no pain for example, then perhaps we should reduce emissions.

      The judgement we have to make about CO2 s about the state of the science, the possible costs of not acting, and the costs of acting. The trouble with much of the climate debate is that we leap from “could be a problem” to “the only solution is to stop emissions” to “windmills!”.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        January 17, 2018 7:42 pm

        The changes that their advice has caused has already cost a lot of “Pain” and $Trillions” in Cash to absolutely NO AFFECT.
        How much more do you want to cause and cash do you wish to waste?

      • HotScot permalink
        January 17, 2018 10:35 pm


        When the only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened by 14% in 30 years of satellite scrutiny, I think it reasonable that ‘climate change’ be considered, so far, entirely beneficial to the human race and life on earth in general.

        As this phenomenon was largely unanticipated by the alarmist community, I think it high time they admit they don’t know how to anticipate a fart in a toilet, far less tomorrow’s weather, and even less, the next 100 years of climate.

  8. Broadlands permalink
    January 17, 2018 2:23 pm

    When was CO2 last at today’s level, and what was the world like then?

    In the late Eocene. The climate was mild. The pH was lower but the calcareous plankton thrived.

    “Geological and geochemical evidence indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet formed during the Eocene–Oligocene transition 33.5–34.0 million years ago. During maximum ice-sheet growth, pCO2 was between 450 and 1,500 p.p.m.v., with a central estimate of 760 p.p.m.v.”

    Paul N. Pearson, Gavin L. Foster, Bridget S. Wade
    Nature 461, 1110-1113 (22 October 2009)

  9. John of Cloverdale WA permalink
    January 17, 2018 2:26 pm

    From Jo Nova
    “The reason you cannot find the link on the Geological Society of Australia web site to their [2009] “policy statement” supporting AGW is that it was withdrawn about 12 months ago after a howling, screaming objection from the majority of GSA members who objected to a “policy statement” that we did not agree with being put forward by 6 members of the management committee (all, I am told, employed by government) without reference to, or approval from, the wider membership. The majority wider GSA membership (some 4,000 members) does not support AGW.”

  10. Phoenix44 permalink
    January 17, 2018 2:31 pm

    “Geologists have recently contributed to improved estimates of climate sensitivity…”

    On what basis are they claiming an improvement? If we don’t know what the climate sensitivity is, then we cannot know what estimates are better than others. And we will only know in the future, and then only if we can disentangle all the other influences.

    This sort of statement is typical of the utter nonsense scientists are churning out at the moment, claims that simply do not stand up to even the most basic of questions.

    Rather than say ” we don’t know”, they just make stuff up.

  11. January 17, 2018 2:45 pm

    Climate sensitivity to CO2 is approximately zero. Any positive value is based upon belief in the false “greenhouse effect” hypothesis.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      January 21, 2018 12:15 pm

      In fact it is interesting to note that the infamous Al Gore experiment that supposedly demonstrated the effect of CO2, has been widely claimed to be a fraud and independent attempts to replicate this “proof of the effect of CO2” have all failed because it is so small as to be unmeasurable.

  12. Graeme No.3 permalink
    January 17, 2018 3:12 pm

    The Eemian interglacial about 125,000 years ago (there is some doubt about exact timing) was warm according to the ice cores, up to 2.5℃ warmer than present. This is backed up by sea levels about 6 metres higher than today indicating a good deal of ice melted. Fossils of lions, elephants, giraffes and hippos have been found in the Thames Valley, further confirming that it was warm. Yet the ice cores indicate the CO2 level rose from approx. 190 to 285ppm. So if the ice core analyses are a true indication I have to ask what happened to Henry’s law? and why if CO2 controls the temperature why haven’t we seen a corresponding rise in the last 150 years.
    And Arctic sea ice was highly unlikely yet the polar bears survived the 10,000 years. There is a lot of nonsense in Climate “Science”.

  13. Bitter@twisted permalink
    January 17, 2018 4:06 pm

    It beggars belief that a learned society can confuse cause and effect.
    Mind you the GSL is in illustrious company. The Royal Society has proved equally inept, with regards the science of climate change.

    • January 17, 2018 5:57 pm

      To quote John of Cloverdale VA “… we did not agree with being put forward by 6 members of the management committee (all, I am told, employed by government) without reference to, or approval from, the wider membership.”

      I suspect the “learned” parts of many of the these societies have nothing to do with official policy statements.

  14. January 18, 2018 12:16 pm


    An excellent and interesting article. My thanks.

    The following is my view on logical flaw in the IPCC position which appears to be affecting many of the papers now being produced by the scientific community; of which this paper upon which you comment is an example.

    This is the IPCC AR4 definition of Radiative Forcing. (essentially similar in AR5)

    The definition of RF from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’. Radiative forcing is used to assess and compare the anthropogenic and natural drivers of climate change. The concept arose from early studies of the climate response to
    changes in solar insolation and CO2, simple radiative-convective models.

    A view on the Consequences

    The above definition does NOT comply with thermodynamic law, in that it defines Radiative Forcing (RF) as an energy flux (Watts/sq.m) moving from one thermodynamic system to another without a change of energy state in the recipient system.

    The logical error here is that the definition should have been in terms of potential or force NOT energy, where later it is given a value of some 1.6 Watts/sq.m.

    Analogies are rarely entirely satisfactory; but electrics may suffice:

    A voltage potential connected to a resistance results in a flow of amps which determines the energy flux. The resistance generates a back EMF to balance the potential and hence controls the energy flux.
    A change in either the voltage or the resistance will change the flux.
    Therefore defining a change in voltage as a flux precludes change in resistance. (as in the definition)

    In climate terms the value of some 1.6 Watts/sq.m is thus specific to but one climate situation and should not be used where other situations prevail.

    I suggest this has caused great confusion within the climate debate; be it subconsciously or in practice and has resulted often in overestimating the influence of the Greenhouse Effect on temperature; as evident in the general predictions deriving from computer models.

    As rightly pointed out the climate/resistance? has a large natural capacity to change and this ability swamps the minor potential/voltage? effect of GHGs.

    I would be grateful for all constructive views and comments good or bad.

    My regards,

    • dennisambler permalink
      January 18, 2018 3:46 pm

      “The Greenhouse Effect”, its history and validity, is discussed here by another geologist:

      “The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect””

      • January 21, 2018 11:55 am

        I have previously read this dennisambler. An excellent appraisal. Well worth the read, quite apart from the history.
        I was particularly interested in Woods experiment which appeared very convincing to me as I have been trying to think of how such an experiment could be done and somewhat failed.

        On an anecdotal note I attended an internet course some time back and wound up with a maverick reputation on the discussion forums.
        Particularly when I asked why there had been no examples of Lab. experiments proving the Greenhouse Effect. I referred to it as the “Holy Grail” of the debate, which was not too diplomatic.
        Politely and diplomatically I was advised to enlist on a course with Chicago University where I would further my education on the subject.
        C’est la vie!

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      January 19, 2018 10:22 am

      I have frequently written to a variety of meja outlets on the RFF fiasco, mostly they have been rejected as being critical of the “proven science”.

      The whole science of AGW hinges on the RFF being increased by CO2. The RFF, while appearing sensible at first glance, is an unmeasurable and unprovable value. It is interesting to compare this with the concept of planetary albedo that underlies the reasoning: this is a value of reflectivity that balances heat input from the sun with measured mean planetary temperatures using the Stephan Bolzmann law . The earths value was assessed at about 0.3 and as this value produced a lower temperature than is experienced, the greenhouse theory was developed. A major component of the true albedo is cloud cover and behaviour, that is not well understood even now.

      So, in effect the RFF is a statement that the earth’s albedo has changed producing a higher value of the solar influx. The value assigned is based on grey-gas theory with no scientific allowances for interactions between water and CO2 and the other important radiative constituents of the atmosphere (dust and aerosols mainly): the final value is “assessed” by a panel and then an unprovable feedback function is invoked to make frightening increases (as high as 8.5 W/m2 in some of the models developed).

      Then, given the little understood geology of the sub-oceanic surfaces (thin crust and many undersea volcanoes) one suspects that the “proven science” is little more than a primitive first estimate of climate response with many important forcing factors unknown.

      • January 21, 2018 11:37 am

        You make some very good points here Jack.

        The problem lies, I think, in the original definition of Radiation Forcing which gives an energy flux as a result and this has now been taken as a “given” , I suspect, in many of the models.
        However it is not valid as it only refers to a fixed estimate of prevailing conditions at the time of calculation and very much open to debate.
        Such as it is, the Greenhouse Effect is Not an energy flux, but is a change in physical properties such as Albedo and Emissivity as you rightly point out and currently the science says very little about that.

        As far as feedback is concerned I have serious doubts about the IPPC methods here; but do not have sufficient knowledge to challenge with confidence. All I know is that my engineering textbooks on the subject appear to take a very different view on the the subject giving a stable situation rather than in the instability inherent in the IPCC position. Perhaps best I keep my mouth shut here and just ask the question.

        My regards.

  15. January 18, 2018 4:17 pm

    A recent paper emphasizes the importance of the Millennial Cycle and supports my earlier forecasts of a coming long term cooling .
    Harmonic Analysis of Worldwide Temperature Proxies for 2000 Years
    Horst-Joachim Lüdecke1, *, Carl-Otto Weiss2
    The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
    ISSN: 1874-2823 ― Volume 11, 2017
    Year: 2017
    Volume: 11
    First Page: 44
    Last Page: 53
    Publisher Id: TOASCJ-11-44
    DOI: 10.2174/1874282301711010044
    The Sun as climate driver is repeatedly discussed in the literature but proofs are often weak. In order to elucidate the solar influence, we have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean G7 over the last 2000 years. The Fourier spectrum of G7 shows the strongest components as ~1000-, ~460-, and ~190 – year periods whereas other cycles of the individual proxies are considerably weaker. The G7 temperature extrema coincide with the Roman, medieval, and present optima as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age. We have constructed by reverse Fourier transform a representation of G7 using only these three sine functions, which shows a remarkable Pearson correlation of 0.84 with the 31-year running average of G7. The three cycles are also found dominant in the production rates of the solar-induced cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be, most strongly in the ~190 – year period being known as the De Vries/Suess cycle. By wavelet analysis, a new proof has been provided that at least the ~190-year climate cycle has a solar origin.”
    The paper also states “……G7, and likewise the sine representations have maxima of comparable size at AD 0, 1000, and 2000. We note that the temperature increase of the late 19th and 20th century is represented by the harmonic temperature representation, and thus is of pure multiperiodic nature. It can be expected that the periodicity of G7, lasting 2000 years so far, will persist also for the foreseeable future. It predicts a temperature drop from present to AD 2050, a slight rise from 2050 to 2130, and a further drop from AD 2130 to 2200 (see Fig. 3), upper panel, green and red curves.”
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at
    and an earlier accessible blog version at
    Here is the abstract:
    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 2003. 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 forecasts in Fig 12 of my paper are similar to those in Ludecke et al.
    It is well past time for a paradigm shift in the forecasting methods used by establishment climate science. The whole dangerous global warming delusion is approaching collapse

  16. January 18, 2018 4:52 pm

    According to ice core records, the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of our current Holocene interglacial. This point is more fully illustrated with ice core records on a millennial basis back to the Eemian period here:…/the-holocene-context…/

    Our current, warm, congenial Holocene interglacial, although cooler than the Eemian interglacial 120,000 years ago, has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years, spanning from mankind’s earliest farming to the most recent technologies.

    Viewing the current Holocene interglacial on a millennial basis is rational. But sadly it seems that, driven by the need to continually support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis / religion Climate alarmists irrationally examine the temperature record at too fine a scale, weather event by weather event, month by month, or year by year.

    From the broader perspective, each of the notable high points in the current 11,000 year Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.

    The ice core records from Greenland for its first 7-8000 years, the early Holocene, shows, virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium, including its early high point known as the “climate optimum”. But the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at around 1000BC, 3000 years ago, has seen temperature fall at about 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium .

    The Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and just judging from the length of previous interglacial periods, the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.

    Nonetheless, the slight and truly beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to a Modern high point has been transmuted by Climate alarmists into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Alarm”.

    The recent warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has been wholly beneficial when compared to the devastating impacts arising from the relatively minor cooling of the Little Ice Age, which include:
    • decolonisation of Greenland
    • Black death
    • French revolution promoted by crop failures and famine
    • the failures of the Inca and Angkor Wat civilisations
    • etc., etc.

    As global temperatures, after a short spurt at the end of the last century, have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last nineteen years or more.

    The world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or probably now non-existent further warming. Warmer times are times of success and prosperity for man-kind and for the biosphere. For example during the Roman warm period the climate was warmer and wetter so that the Northern Sahara was the breadbasket of the Roman empire.

    But the coming end of the present Holocene interglacial will eventually again result in a mile high ice sheet over much of the Northern hemisphere. As the Holocene epoch is already about 11,000 years old, the reversion to a true ice age is becoming overdue.

    That reversion to Ice Age conditions will be the real climate catastrophe.

    With the present reducing Solar activity, significantly reduced temperatures, at least to the level of another Little Ice Age are predicted quite soon this century.

    Whether the present impending cooling will really lead on to a new glacial ice age or not is still in question.

    As an interested layman, I would say that the betting is more heavily weighted towards a catastrophically cooling world rather than one that will be overheating because of the comparatively minor CO2 emissions from mankind.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: