The paper that was noted on OLO recently on Jo Novos site is on the IPA's site.
It is written by John Abbot and tracks the variation in Earth's
temperature over millennia.
In this paper he seems to have implemented the technique suggested by
J Kauppinen and others on using Fourier mathematical techniques to dig
cycles of temperature change out of noisy temperature records.
This technique was developed at CSIRO by a team of radio astronomers
which included a friend of mine.
It is now used by us all with WiFi data.

With this data he shows the cycle of cooling and warming from Roman
times, the Medieval Warming when the Vikings settled on Greenland
the Mini Ice Age when the Vikings left Green land and the Maunder Minimum
occurred at the start of the industrial revolution.
About now there should be a cessation in temperature increase and in
a hundred years or so a decline should be confirmed with a low in
600 years or so. That is my forecast from the data.

If the Sun/Cosmic Rays/Clouds can be shown to be the cause of the
current Global Warming then there will be hell to pay.
There have been attempts to ban the publication of John Abbots paper..
Here is the link to the paper.

http://tinyurl.com/4cp7vsn5

In the past, climate changed through tectonic, galactic, orbital, solar, ocean, and lunar cycles, not because of carbon dioxide. Nothing has changed.

With some people it's a case of never letting science get in the way of a hefty research grant underpinned by a media scare campaign. That's another reason for the climate change hysteria. Human induced global warming is not supported by measurable geological evidence.

It is not that the elites are interested in climate change, but to use it as a vehicle to get us out of our cars, & back into mud huts.

A bit from the committee of the New York stare government, USA charged with organising their recently passed law for zero emissions by 2050.

"An aggressive and implementable mix of policies will be required to accelerate GHG emission reductions to the level needed by 2030. By 2030 nearly 100% of LDV sales and 40% or more of MHD vehicle sales must be ZEVs and a substantial portion of personal transportation in urbanized areas would be required to shift to public transportation and other low-carbon modes. New York can achieve these goals through ZEV sales requirements and accompanying incentives and investments to help achieve these mandates, historic investments in expanded public transportation and micro-mobility, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, smart growth development, market-based policies that support lower-carbon transportation choices, and potentially a clean fuel standard that reduces the average carbon intensity of fuels as the transition to zero emissions vehicles proceeds".

GOBBLEDYGOOK is rife with lefty rat bags, but do realise they have us our cars, & our life style right in their cross hairs. They want us out of our cars, & back in mud huts.

I do hope some of the useful idiots start to wake up in time, or our grand kids will be living a life similar to the middle ages peasant.

get us out of our cars, & back into mud huts.
Hasbeen,
I wonder how the multinationals will make money from us then ?

I agree individual, I have wondered how the elites expect to profit from their current behavior, perhaps they believe they will all become lords of the Manor.

Bazz,
>There have been attempts to ban the publication of John Abbots paper..
Do you mean the peer review process?

__________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
Who are these "elites" who want to get us into mud huts?
Are they a figment of your own imagination? Or someone else's?

Sorry Aidan, not trying to be unpleasant, but if you don't know who the elites are, you are too thick for me to try to explain it to you.

Bazz all you say is very true, but if you have sufficient math, & follow the absorbance equations it is totally obvious that poor innocent CO2 can not do even a few percent of what the warmists claim. There must be thousands of scientific academics who know this as a fact, but are keeping their traps shut.

If I wanted to give myself a head ache I might try to figure out their angle. Obviously the finance industry are using it to make big money, just as the pharmaceutical industry is deep into ripping us all off with the Covid money tree.

Perhaps it has always been such, & I was too busy chasing my bucket list to notice, but sit for a few minutes with eyes & brain open, & it all comes into focus.

If green activism achieves its aims, the Third World will remain in poverty. Western countries will become impoverished an even more reliant on China which uses climate change as a weapon against the West.

Activists and politicians want to destroy economies based on a 0.8° temperature rise over the last century and a SPECULATED rise of 2° over the next century.

Since 2000, Australia's debt has increased by 200%, more than any other country in the world.

It amazes me that climate denialists don't think twice about "slip, slop, slap" behaviour when they venture outside.

They can't accept that dumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere over a couple of centuries will have no global effect but a few decades of using spray cans has punched a hole in the ozone layer and exposed us to rising skin cancer rates.

One version of the same science is "not settled" but the other is totally accepted without question.

Is it because the industry (chemical) that created the problem also provided the solution so there was no huge financial penalty involved and that they don't have pockets as deep as the global fossil fuel industry?

They ignore the official science but latch onto some obscure theory that apparently all the scientists in the world have missed.

It's really not surprising since there are increasing numbers of people who believe the world is flat, or hollow or that crystals and fairies provide miracle solutions. Some even think that the Morrison government is performing well.

I agree rache.

We are witness to the same old strategies adopted by the pro-smoking lobby and cigarette companies. The movie "Thank you for smoking" springs to mind.

What also amazes me is how quickly we forget (or develop wilful blindness) to the atmospheric problems facing London in the 1950's. The place had become so filthy and dirty due in great part to long term effects of coal burning fires in the city that the Great Smog of 1952 caused considerable disruption and injured 100,000 and killed 4,000 (1952 government estimate.) 4 years latter the government passed the Clean Air Act and the air Londoners breathe today and the city buildings are much cleaner as a result.

The only explanation I can come up with for why the deniers persist is that air is invisible, whereas water is not. Perhaps that's why the Clean Rivers Project has been so widely embraced by even the most strident anti-pollution deniers.

If being able to see the damage burning fossil fuels does makes me an 'elite' subscribing to some absurd conspiracy plot, too thick to understand, then so be it. Hasbeen can't or won't explain what an 'elite' is. "... but if you don't know who the elites are, you are too thick for me to try to explain it to you."

Dear Bazz,

Mate, still flogging this poor old horse?

As I always ask but never get an answer: what physical property of CO2 do you want me to ignore in order to believe that increasing the contribution by 50% of the second most significant green house gas doesn't impact global temperatures?

How about SR you give us the magic property of CO2 you reckon can increase our temperature.

I won't hold my breath.

Oh & give us the math you reckon proves the rubbish.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
is a start but the information is freely available everywhere.

It's really a matter of proving it doesn't increase atmospheric temperature.

Typically the phoney argument is raised against CO2 generally but it's always been about TOO MUCH CO2.

That's what "too much" means.
For example, we need water to live but drinking too much of the stuff will kill you and even drinking a small amount of distilled water can be fatal.

Likewise if cholesterol (which is vital for cell growth) in the bloodstream is raised by only a relatively tiny amount, bad things will start happening.

rache,
Drinking a small amount of distilled water is not lethal. I think you may be conflating it with heavy water.

BTW there are a few people still denying the effects of CFCs, claiming it's all a conspiracy by the big chemical companies to make more money from the new refrigerants after the CFC patents expired. But it's very hard for them to convince people that CFCs stay n the lower atmosphere, as upper atmospheric samples prove otherwise. Likewise their claim that even if they did get up there they wouldn't release chlorine, as lab tests have proved that UV causes CFCs to release chlorine in low pressure conditions.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
I'm not asking ho the elites are, I'm asking about the particular subset of elites who want us to get into mud huts.
How about you name three? It shouldn't be too difficult, should it?
Or if you can't identify three, two will do.
I reckon you're unable to name a single one, because they're all figments of your imagination.

> give us the magic property of CO2 you reckon can increase our temperature
Most people do not regard physics as magic, but the physical property of CO2 that can increase our temperature is its ability to absorb and reemit infrared.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock? Good?

We have of course done this dance many times and perhaps due to your advanced years you have forgotten. So I confidently assume I will be doing all this again in the not too distant future.

Anyway to keep it simple it is the molecular configuration of CO2 which allows it to vibrate in certain directions, or nodes to be more precise, which permits it to absorb and release energy that causing the atmosphere to retain more heat.

Please let me know if you are struggling with any of that.

Well what do you know, he can Google.

Try looking at the frequencies absorbed by water vapor & CO2, then the volumes of each in the air, then do a bit of math & you will find CO2 does not rate even as a bit player.

You could then look up the Japanese & Russian research that found CO2 tends to displace water vapor in the air, & thus is a cooling agent, but I guess that would be too much for you.

Hasbeen, if there really was evidence that CO2 was displacing water vapour in the air, the climate deniers would be shouting it from the rooftops! Instead the only person who mentions it is yourself. Such observations would seemingly contradict the laws of physics, so as extraordinary claims they require extraordinary proof.

Your previous failure to cite the evidence when challenged makes me suspect that what really happened is you misunderstood the research showing a greater CO2 concentration reduces the amount of water vapour entering the atmosphere by transpiration.

The main factor in how much water vapour the atmosphere holds is temperature, as at low temperatures it condenses out. Therefore the warming caused by CO2, though much less than that caused by water vapour, increases the amount of water vapour the atmosphere holds, further increasing the temperature.

So, I am assuming that because we currently have a large amount of water in the atmosphere and creating record floods that we currently have a decrease in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere- hense a global cooling not caused by man. Or is that also caused by humans?

Dear Hasbeen,

If your recall faculties were up to scratch you will remember numerous conversations we have had over the years including the fact that I sat through 22 hours of lectures from a Climate Professor at MIT over a decade ago.

For a layman I consider I have had a good grounding of the basic science behind Global Warming and find it extraordinary the every time you refuse to acknowledge CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas.

You have instead gotten yourself fixated on some fringe paper.

Time to stop getting yourself so stirred up old boy.

It wasn't so long ago that denialists were insisting the planet wasn't heating up but actually cooling but most have abandoned that strategy.

Their next battle will be about the relative efficacy of proposed solutions, like the never-ending Ivermectin argument for COVID despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Stating the obvious, what credibility does Jo Nova have and why would anyone follow her 'analysis' which is only accepted by Koch Network think tanks (sovereignty anyone?), NewsCorp etc. & much of the broader LNP coalition and alt fringes (but not all MPs nor farmers especially)?

Following is a link featured by OLO:

https://joannenova.com.au/2021/12/pandemic-of-the-vaccinated/

Nova also promoted 'Freedom Protests' against sensible Covid restraints using the infamous German based website, here at OLO......

The 1-10% of middle class 'elites' in Australia would dare not follow this advice but consult with 'experts' and like Murdoch & Fox/NewsCorp personnel, get vaccinated (as mandated by co. policy).

However, for political agitprop the same then becomes contorted in media and public narratives into e.g. identifying nurses, teachers etc. pejoratively as 'elites' and denigrating 'experts', especially related to Brexit and climate (thanks Kochs, more sovereignty for the UK, right?).

Says more about how in the pretentious 'Anglosphere' ageing monocultural radical right have joined the circle with the lunatic left to ensure sub-optimal democracy, media oligopoly, socialism for industry favourites, climate science denial (blame the old eugenics trope of 'population growth'), immigration restrictions, taking rights from citizens and dumbing down society.

Well done Australia, how smart are you?