Thanks for that. Good to know that it was useful to someone. I am optimistic, yes - but I don't think the change will be peaceful entirely. But humanity will get through it without destroying itself - so for me the glass is more than half full.
Yes - there's a hell of a lot to get your head around in astrophysics. Some scientists are suggesting that there will be another ice age starting at the end of this solar cycle. Others fear that the magnetic pole change could be bad news. More optimistic souls are predicting a mini-ice age at the end of the cycle. Since none of these is amenable to rational calculation all we can do is go with our feelings. Since I am feeling optimistic, I'm going for the mini ice age - which we should be able to cop with - i.e. if it's as mild as Valentina Zharkova has calculated.
Nice one Rob. A clear and concise article. I can only applaud your bravery in addressing this very devisive issue - perhaps that is the motivation of the PTB. Common sense and a positive attitude - I liked the notion that your glass is more than half full - is preferable to the cries of Chicken Little.
I do wonder sometime whether quoting the suggested 90% of whooever means anything more than a horse racing favourite being the most popular choice rather than the most likely horse to win the race.
You appear to have challenged some heartfelt theories with this article. Thanks.
Thanks Dude. It's not bravery really: I am simply expressing my beliefs. I was not aware of how divisive an issue it is among my readers until I received some replies. But that's OK - I do understand. Yet I'm not going to hide this side of me just because it could be divisive. I can't pick and choose when to be honest. Appreciate your comments.
For some reason Substack doesn't let me 'like' an individual comment any more. So it forces me to actually comment, which is no bad thing. However, it does mean I have to compose something rather than merely click on 'like', which is my lazy option. Such is life.
Keep up the good work. It's a bit like being at The Restaurant At The End of The Universe sometimes - an historical privilege that feels better with a glass more than half full ;o)
Can't help on that Dude: Substack is an absolute mystery to me. It is surprising how many people praise my work but don't leave a like. But I'm not that bothered.
I read an article decades ago on expected global cooling, but have not researched it since. Global warming wiped it from media consciousness. It is believed that if melting ice from Antarctica causes the Gulf Stream to slow right down, the northern hemisphere will experience a much colder climate. There are already greater extremes of weather being experienced everywhere in the northern hemisphere. Here we are having what were once-100 year weather events -unprecedented floods and bushfires - quite regularly. Extreme weather events was one of the global warming predictions.
Extreme weather events are also part of the global cooling theory based on the sun which drives climate rather than CO2. Weak magnetic fields on the sun and earth - a consequence of solar cycles - allow cosmic rays to penetrate the earth causing 'cloud nucleation' - which means that clouds retain more moisture leading to increased precipitation of all sorts. Did you know that the US has experienced record snow pack in recent years - of course that won't receive much publicity. But the climate is also affected by Ocean Gyres and currents such as El Niño/La Niña. In addition, the magnetic pole is shifting - which could also have a long term impact on climate. A slow down of the gulf stream could also happen even if global warming is not true. It's complicated. It is also the case that the establishment falsely presents events to us as 'unprecedented'. Anyway, I am spending too much time on this. If you are interested in some debunking of alarmist climate claims check out https://www.youtube.com/@TonyHeller.
Hi Rob I really like your articles and I will continue to read them. But it makes me wince when well intentioned people who are alive to many of the lies we are told question global warming. I am old enough and educated enough to remember that when the basic physics was worked out 50 years ago, there was huge opposition to this from the oil / car industry, who spent a fortune in setting up institutions to bamboozle people, just as the cigarette industry did about lung cancer - and it worked. The industry has moved on - but the victims of its propaganda continue to live in the past. I think a lot of people question GW because it is promoted by known pathological liars - but that doesn't mean it is false! To know the truth you have to ignore the messenger and think hard about the message.
As I have already said to Joy, I have done many hundreds of hours of scientific research into global warming and cooling after believing in warming for decades. In consequence of this research I changed my views. If you would like some links to scientists who debunk global warming I would be pleased to provide them. Best Rob
Hi Rob, well fair enough, I feel the same way about a number of issues myself. It is an issue that divides the alternative view community, and I would like to understand your views more clearly. If there is one particular argument or scientist who convinced you I would be interested in a link - thank you.
You are right: the issues does divide us and it's a shame. After decades of believing in global warming - even writing songs about it - I watched Piers Corbyn (weather expert and astrophysicist) being interviewed on George Galloway's show which included a contribution from a Green activist (Dec 2018) who provided ad hominem attacks on Piers but no argument. I was suspicious so decided to do some research. At the time I was active in the UK Labour party. It took hundreds of hours of research over two or three months and much soul searching before I realised that I could no longer believe in Global Warming. I had to leave the Labour Party because 'climate deniers' are not really accepted. I lost many friends on the left, including the Green left - but I have no regrets. I can't say that there is any single scientist or argument that persuaded me to change my mind. Rather, it was a process. The failure of climate models based on the CO2 theory to predict the future was part of it (snow should have disappeared years ago) along with basic scientific data on CO2 which follows changes in temperature rather than causing them. The calculations of those who believe in global warming are based on an erroneous assumption that the sun has no impact on climate - which is absurd. This is based on a scientific misunderstanding of the way that energy is transmitted from the sun to the earth and that matter is complicated. In my next Update, I will provide some links that will cover some of the basics issues. But, as I said, it took me many hundreds of hours of research before I understood the issues sufficiently to make judgements. I have no background in astrophysics.
Can only agree Tim. Rob writes great articles but the problems he has with Global Warming and what to do about it, seems quite a blind spot. Anyone who can read a graph can see the warming trajectory.
It boggles my mind that people who couldn't meet the intellectual requirements to get into a Climate Science Degree course claim to know more about it through what they pick up in their lunch break than actual the actual qualified scientists who study it as their life's work.
Rob, Your takes on geopolitics are spot on, and very informative, but your take on global warming is not. From a political viewpoint, remember when George W Bush's spin doctor renamed Global Warming to Climate Change? He did that to damp down alarm, and to let the fossil fuel industry go on its merry, money-making way. I live in a nation that has had to put new colours on weather maps to accomodate the new wave of higher temperatures being experienced in the interior; where flora and fauna that only existed further north are now found a lot further south; and where higher oceanic temperatures have wreaked devastation on our Great Barrier Reef. As a science teacher I used to teach global warming climate predictions. I have seen many of these come to pass in the last two decades.
I have conducted hundreds of hours of research into global warming/cooling after believing in global warming for decades. I had to lose friends due to my changed beliefs but have no regrets. I am not going to attempt to change anyone's minds on this: people have to do their own research - but I will continue to express beliefs underpinned by logic and observations. If you want some links to scientists who debunk global warming then let me know. Rob
Thanks Rob, I think I'll just stick with the 98% of IPCC scientists who support the science on anthropological warming. I asked a well-known climate denier, in a public forum, "If 98% of Biologists told you the a particular mushroom was poisonous, and 2% dissented, would you feed it to your children?" Of course he answered "No". We will have to agree to disagree. On Sunday I saw two huge red kangaroos on my property, which is only about 20kms from the coast. They are way our of their range, and these anomalies are happening frequently.
The 98% IPCC scientists claim is a myth Joy. I will provide some links in my next update to 'climate deniers'. Since it took me many months and many hundred of hours of research to change my mind about global warming I don't see how others can do the same without doing similar levels of research. We can agree to disagree Joy but if you comment on this then I will respond. Can I ask, how much research have you done into global cooling?
Useful breakdown of the ideological underpinnings of the rules based system. Thanks.
And good to hear you're taking a half glass full position on the peaceful change to multpolarity. Heaven knows we need it.
Thanks for that. Good to know that it was useful to someone. I am optimistic, yes - but I don't think the change will be peaceful entirely. But humanity will get through it without destroying itself - so for me the glass is more than half full.
Privilege? Cursed I'd say. Interesting times and so on.
Just ask her the difference between glacials, interglacials, stadials and interstadials.
If the writer can speak about those with reference to Milankotitch cycles that would be a bonus.
Knowing the difference between the Eemian and the Holocene would score points as well.
If they know anything about the Pleistocene and whether it has ended in the Holocene with the advent of human history would be interesting as well.
A definitive answer as to whether there will another glacial following the current interglacial (Holocene) would be mucho bonus points!
Yes - there's a hell of a lot to get your head around in astrophysics. Some scientists are suggesting that there will be another ice age starting at the end of this solar cycle. Others fear that the magnetic pole change could be bad news. More optimistic souls are predicting a mini-ice age at the end of the cycle. Since none of these is amenable to rational calculation all we can do is go with our feelings. Since I am feeling optimistic, I'm going for the mini ice age - which we should be able to cop with - i.e. if it's as mild as Valentina Zharkova has calculated.
Nice one Rob. A clear and concise article. I can only applaud your bravery in addressing this very devisive issue - perhaps that is the motivation of the PTB. Common sense and a positive attitude - I liked the notion that your glass is more than half full - is preferable to the cries of Chicken Little.
I do wonder sometime whether quoting the suggested 90% of whooever means anything more than a horse racing favourite being the most popular choice rather than the most likely horse to win the race.
You appear to have challenged some heartfelt theories with this article. Thanks.
Thanks Dude. It's not bravery really: I am simply expressing my beliefs. I was not aware of how divisive an issue it is among my readers until I received some replies. But that's OK - I do understand. Yet I'm not going to hide this side of me just because it could be divisive. I can't pick and choose when to be honest. Appreciate your comments.
For some reason Substack doesn't let me 'like' an individual comment any more. So it forces me to actually comment, which is no bad thing. However, it does mean I have to compose something rather than merely click on 'like', which is my lazy option. Such is life.
Keep up the good work. It's a bit like being at The Restaurant At The End of The Universe sometimes - an historical privilege that feels better with a glass more than half full ;o)
Can't help on that Dude: Substack is an absolute mystery to me. It is surprising how many people praise my work but don't leave a like. But I'm not that bothered.
I read an article decades ago on expected global cooling, but have not researched it since. Global warming wiped it from media consciousness. It is believed that if melting ice from Antarctica causes the Gulf Stream to slow right down, the northern hemisphere will experience a much colder climate. There are already greater extremes of weather being experienced everywhere in the northern hemisphere. Here we are having what were once-100 year weather events -unprecedented floods and bushfires - quite regularly. Extreme weather events was one of the global warming predictions.
Extreme weather events are also part of the global cooling theory based on the sun which drives climate rather than CO2. Weak magnetic fields on the sun and earth - a consequence of solar cycles - allow cosmic rays to penetrate the earth causing 'cloud nucleation' - which means that clouds retain more moisture leading to increased precipitation of all sorts. Did you know that the US has experienced record snow pack in recent years - of course that won't receive much publicity. But the climate is also affected by Ocean Gyres and currents such as El Niño/La Niña. In addition, the magnetic pole is shifting - which could also have a long term impact on climate. A slow down of the gulf stream could also happen even if global warming is not true. It's complicated. It is also the case that the establishment falsely presents events to us as 'unprecedented'. Anyway, I am spending too much time on this. If you are interested in some debunking of alarmist climate claims check out https://www.youtube.com/@TonyHeller.
Hi Rob I really like your articles and I will continue to read them. But it makes me wince when well intentioned people who are alive to many of the lies we are told question global warming. I am old enough and educated enough to remember that when the basic physics was worked out 50 years ago, there was huge opposition to this from the oil / car industry, who spent a fortune in setting up institutions to bamboozle people, just as the cigarette industry did about lung cancer - and it worked. The industry has moved on - but the victims of its propaganda continue to live in the past. I think a lot of people question GW because it is promoted by known pathological liars - but that doesn't mean it is false! To know the truth you have to ignore the messenger and think hard about the message.
As I have already said to Joy, I have done many hundreds of hours of scientific research into global warming and cooling after believing in warming for decades. In consequence of this research I changed my views. If you would like some links to scientists who debunk global warming I would be pleased to provide them. Best Rob
Hi Rob, well fair enough, I feel the same way about a number of issues myself. It is an issue that divides the alternative view community, and I would like to understand your views more clearly. If there is one particular argument or scientist who convinced you I would be interested in a link - thank you.
You are right: the issues does divide us and it's a shame. After decades of believing in global warming - even writing songs about it - I watched Piers Corbyn (weather expert and astrophysicist) being interviewed on George Galloway's show which included a contribution from a Green activist (Dec 2018) who provided ad hominem attacks on Piers but no argument. I was suspicious so decided to do some research. At the time I was active in the UK Labour party. It took hundreds of hours of research over two or three months and much soul searching before I realised that I could no longer believe in Global Warming. I had to leave the Labour Party because 'climate deniers' are not really accepted. I lost many friends on the left, including the Green left - but I have no regrets. I can't say that there is any single scientist or argument that persuaded me to change my mind. Rather, it was a process. The failure of climate models based on the CO2 theory to predict the future was part of it (snow should have disappeared years ago) along with basic scientific data on CO2 which follows changes in temperature rather than causing them. The calculations of those who believe in global warming are based on an erroneous assumption that the sun has no impact on climate - which is absurd. This is based on a scientific misunderstanding of the way that energy is transmitted from the sun to the earth and that matter is complicated. In my next Update, I will provide some links that will cover some of the basics issues. But, as I said, it took me many hundreds of hours of research before I understood the issues sufficiently to make judgements. I have no background in astrophysics.
Can only agree Tim. Rob writes great articles but the problems he has with Global Warming and what to do about it, seems quite a blind spot. Anyone who can read a graph can see the warming trajectory.
It boggles my mind that people who couldn't meet the intellectual requirements to get into a Climate Science Degree course claim to know more about it through what they pick up in their lunch break than actual the actual qualified scientists who study it as their life's work.
Rob, Your takes on geopolitics are spot on, and very informative, but your take on global warming is not. From a political viewpoint, remember when George W Bush's spin doctor renamed Global Warming to Climate Change? He did that to damp down alarm, and to let the fossil fuel industry go on its merry, money-making way. I live in a nation that has had to put new colours on weather maps to accomodate the new wave of higher temperatures being experienced in the interior; where flora and fauna that only existed further north are now found a lot further south; and where higher oceanic temperatures have wreaked devastation on our Great Barrier Reef. As a science teacher I used to teach global warming climate predictions. I have seen many of these come to pass in the last two decades.
Joy,
I have conducted hundreds of hours of research into global warming/cooling after believing in global warming for decades. I had to lose friends due to my changed beliefs but have no regrets. I am not going to attempt to change anyone's minds on this: people have to do their own research - but I will continue to express beliefs underpinned by logic and observations. If you want some links to scientists who debunk global warming then let me know. Rob
Thanks Rob, I think I'll just stick with the 98% of IPCC scientists who support the science on anthropological warming. I asked a well-known climate denier, in a public forum, "If 98% of Biologists told you the a particular mushroom was poisonous, and 2% dissented, would you feed it to your children?" Of course he answered "No". We will have to agree to disagree. On Sunday I saw two huge red kangaroos on my property, which is only about 20kms from the coast. They are way our of their range, and these anomalies are happening frequently.
The 98% IPCC scientists claim is a myth Joy. I will provide some links in my next update to 'climate deniers'. Since it took me many months and many hundred of hours of research to change my mind about global warming I don't see how others can do the same without doing similar levels of research. We can agree to disagree Joy but if you comment on this then I will respond. Can I ask, how much research have you done into global cooling?