Pete S, the temperature change from the late 18th century to today is
about half the cycle which varies from about 600 to 1000 years long.
It varies in length because it is the result of three different cycles.
The sun's variation cycle, the Milanovitch cycles, and the variation
in the intensity of the peaks in the 11 year sunspot cycle.

When all these cycles coincide the earths magnetic field is disrupted
and more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere and form more clouds and so
cool the earth by reflecting solar radiation and shading.

Note the Roman warm period, Roman troops grew grapes in Scotland.
The medieval warm period around 900 when the Vikings settled
Greenland, but had to leave in the 1400s when it got too cold.
The Maunder minimum from late 18th century and the last Ice Festival
on the frozen Thames in 1814.

The warming that has occurred from the early 1800 till today was
fully expected and is on schedule. From about now there will be a warm
period of about75 to 100 years but then will start getting colder for
the next 300 to 500 years.
The Finns at Turku University are using mathematical techniques to
try and predict the actual cold and warm peaks.

It appears from the research that co2 has been given too much
sensitivity to the earth temperature. The Turku and Kobe Uni
scientists believe that the co2 change from the early 18th century
to today has resulted in 0.1 deg C. The rest of the change is the
Svenmark affect on clouds.

I think the current rigid attitude on the cause of the warming is
unshakable and we are committed to an economic collapse as we try
to defeat the sun.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton:- ITS THE SUN STUPID !

Good article, Brendan.

Best of luck in converting our science illiterate pollies – both Coalition and Labor – who capitulate to Green-left bureaucratic groupthink.

Yep. No difference between parties. Morrison was spruiking zero emissions by 2050 tonight on TV.

Zero emission with more & more humans ?

Bazz. An accurate and readable description of the milanovich cycle which has been relatively well studied and documented for some time. The result of the three interacting cycles are as you describe. The 11 year cycle I refer to is the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ cycles mos evident in the ‘sun spot’ activity of our sun.
As the passive cycle occurs, less magnetic (?) radiation is released to deflect solar radiation particles from bombarding the planet. It is my understanding that these particles form the nucleus of cloud particles. Hence, an increase in planetary cloud cover. Anyone (accept a greenie) stepping under a veranda on a hot day will feel that.

The existence of these particles and their effect was mere theory until Zev Amir(?) demonstrated their presence using the hedron colliderscope in Bern some years ago. An experiment that has been independently replicated many times.

There is little wonder that Global Circulation Models are unable to replicate these either in ‘hind casting’ or ‘forecasting’

I am unaware of the Turku and Kobe studies resulting in the 0.1 degree increase. Thanks for that I will chase those studies up. To what extent this increase is the result of ‘human’ intervention is somewhat conjecture but I have read somewhere that it is about 1%.

Raycom. I could not agree more with your comment. The science deniers in the US senate advocating the ‘Green New Deal’ are a hurdle we ‘deplorables’ have no chance of deflecting at this time.

TTBN. Depressing isn’t it! Let’s watch both our major parties jump onto the Biden train as we all ride into the new Paris Climate Accord in an effort to bankrupt our economy.

This all sounds a bit depressing. Eventually, I believe that a reliance on ‘the science’ will vindicate my understanding of the uselessness of trying to use CO2 as a knob to set global temperatures to a level we would prefer. I think the ‘Roman warm period’ would be a setting I would go for. Grape vines along Hadrian’s wall and fruit and vegetables marketed from Greenland (if not subject to EU regulations).

Pete S
Here are some references
Svenmark's hypothesis seems to have been the original work on the
effect of cosmic rays on clouds.
I can't find the names of the Kobe Uni scientists involved.
I kept them somewhere I know.
Kaupenin was a member of the IPCC committee until his retirement.

Helinski Times http://tinyurl.com/y3h3qpa5

http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/