ZERO Change in the Rate of Sea Level Rise — for All of Recorded History

The statement

“This is a post which writes itself in a single graph. We will throw other graphs in because we like controversy. Figure 1, from the NOAA, shows CO2 launching upward since 1960 on the left side, with graphs of tide gauge data from multiple stations on the right. The data on the right stays perfectly straight while the data on the left is springing upward, ostensibly causing global energy increases in the ocean in the form of heat.

Referring to the right side above, nobody claims global warming started prior to 1900, although they may have to soon because there is literally zero change in slope. The problem with all of this, however, is that it is the smoking gun proof that global warming is not a major effect. For global warming to be real, we literally NEED the oceanic level to change (at least a little) in response to CO2.     …..

In all cases, there is ZERO curvature in the measured data. This is proof that man has NOT impacted sea level in a measurable way. This is important because oceans, like coffee cups, cannot be deeper on one side for any length of time. Liquids self-level. All of humanities coal plants, all concrete manufacturing processes, all cars, all fossil fuels across the entire history of sea level measurement has had precisely zero impact on sea level.”

The source

Jeff Id, on

(See also re some source data for the above article)

For some profile information on Jeff Id, see here:

My take on it

‘For global warming to be real, we literally NEED the oceanic level to change (at least a little) in response to CO2.’

This article includes a plot of CO2 ‘launching up’ over time, since ~1955.

This article also contains data series of sea level in multiple locations.  These reflect a (very minor) slope, and the slope is constant (ie with no curvature).

The implication?

“All of humanities (sic) coal plants, all concrete manufacturing processes, all cars, all fossil fuels across the entire history of sea level measurement has had precisely zero impact on sea level.”

Global cooling: “expect to see a reduction … by up to 1.0°C”

The statement

This discovery of double dynamo action in the Sun brought us a timely warning about the upcoming grand solar minimum 1, when solar magnetic field and its magnetic activity will be reduced by 70%. This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 25–26 and 26–27, e.g. in the decade 2031–2043.

The source

Valentina Zharkova, Modern Grand Solar Minimum Will lead to terrestrial cooling , in Temperature, 4 August 2020


My take on it

If you had never heard of a Grand Solar Minimum before today, I am not far ahead of you. A colleague kept mentioning it, in the context of energy generation, so I thought I best take a closer look.

Providential perhaps, that in my first browse on the topic I should come across this article, read it, appreciate the evident competence of the author, and glean some of the core information I was seeking.

Valentina Zharkova is a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. She obtained her PhD from the Solar Division of the Main Astronomical Observatory, Kyiv, Ukraine and her thesis was in non-LTE radiative transfer entitled “Hydrogen emission in quiescent solar prominences with filamentary structure”. She has been a Lecturer at the University of Bradford, and in 2002 she appointed to a Reader and in 2005 to a Professor in Applied Mathematics. From September 2013 she joined the Northumbria University as a Professor in Mathematics.

My takeways are these:

The sun is the main source of energy for all planets of the solar system.

This energy is delivered to Earth in a form of solar radiation in different wavelengths, called total solar irradiance.

Solar irradiance varies, due to sunspot activity and related magnetic fields.

Zharkova’s analysis reveals the appearance of Grand Solar Cycles of 350–400 years caused by the interference of two magnetic waves. These grand cycles are separated by the grand solar minima, or the periods of very low solar activity.

The previous grand solar minimum was Maunder minimum (1645–1710), and the one before that, Wolf minimum (1270–1350).

In the next 500 years there are two modern grand solar minima approaching in the Sun: the modern one in the 21st century (2020–2053) and the second one in the 24th century (2370–2415)

During the periods of low solar activity, such as the modern grand solar minimum, the Sun will often be devoid of sunspots.

The reduction of solar magnetic field will cause a decrease of solar irradiance.

“During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 25–26 and 26–27, e.g. in the decade 2031–2043.”

“The reduction of a terrestrial temperature during the next 30 years can have important implications for different parts of the planet on growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating needs in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. This global cooling during the upcoming grand solar minimum 1 (2020–2053) can offset for three decades any signs of global warming and would require inter-government efforts to tackle problems with heat and food supplies for the whole population of the Earth.


Finkel: blueprint for destruction?

The quote?

“The Finkel report is a blueprint for destruction — of the Australian economy and destruction of the Liberal Party.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull would do himself a huge favour if he dumped the irrevocably flawed Finkel ­report immediately. Moreover, he would save the nation and his party from obliteration.

Chief Scientist Alan Finkel presented a document which only highlights how ridiculous Australia’s political and media classes have been with their kneejerk responses to the ­global Green-Labor ­inspired hysteria over the ­intensely ­disputed claims of global warming.

His report fails at every level.”


The source?

Piers Akerman ( )


My take on it?

If you are relying on the oft-quoted 97% consensus, don’t.  You can’t prove science by polling:

“In fact all sceptics that I know of that that work in this business, all are part of that 97 per cent because the 97 per cent includes people who think humans have some influence on climate.  Well that’s a fairly innocuous statement. The question is, How much?  And How much influence makes all the difference in the world if you’re going to be basing policy decisions, carbon taxes, regulations, legislation, whatever, on them.  It makes all the difference in the world exactly how much warming we can expect due to human activities.”  (Dr Roy Spencer, US Senate Hearing, 2013)

The research paper famously quoted in 2016 by then-President Obama (Cook et al: ) in fact misquotes the IPCC in its opening paragraph.  Cook et al say:

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that ‘human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century’.

The IPCC actually says (eg ):

‘It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.’

Five prefacing words make all the difference.  Cook et al present something as proven fact;  the IPCC presents it as a probability.   The latter at least reflects science;  the former is mis-representation.

The cause of any such global warming is disputed:

“The IPCC has been almost totally silent on potential natural explanations for global warming.  Oh they mention a couple of external influences such as volcanic eruptions and small fluctuations in solar output as possible minor players.  But they have totally ignored the 800-pound gorilla in the room – natural internal chaotic fluctuations in the climate system.” (Dr Roy Spencer, US Senate Hearing, 2008)

The quantum of that postulated warming has reportedly been exaggerated:

“We have discovered why previous sensitivity estimates have been so high and so uncertain.  They have been contaminated by natural cloud variability.  And we have even developed two methods of removing that contamination.  An analysis of six years of our latest and most accurate NASA satellite data reveals evidence of very low climate sensitivity.  When translated into an estimate of future global warming it would be less than less than 1°C by 2100, well below the range of the IPCC’s estimates of future warming.”  (Spencer, 2008, op cit)

One might well ask, Why the blame, and why the exaggeration?

“In the early days of the IPCC I was visiting the Head of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy – the Director, Dr Robert Watson, who later became the first Chairman of the IPCC. He informed me and a work associate with me that since we now had started to regulate ozone-depleting substances under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the next goal in his mind was to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning.  This was nearly twenty years ago.  There was no mention of the scientific basis for that goal.   So as you can see, from the beginning of the IPCC process it has been guided by desired policy outcomes, not science.”  (Spencer, 2008, op cit)

Our land abounds with nature’s gifts, including high grade coal.  The reigning paradigm will devalue those assets and sell them off cheaply, to be burned overseas where pollution controls are generally less stringent;  or leave them in the ground, sacrificing our comparative advantage and general prosperity while the smoke cloud from a myriad of Indian buffalo dung fires continues to waft across southeast Asia:

“If they can take something as beautiful as the science that Isaac Newton created and pervert it to the point where it can cause us to cause the deaths of billion of people by withdrawing their energy supplies, then we have failed.”  (Dr Art Robinson, founder of the Petition Project (‘31,487 scientists say No to alarm’), International Conference on Climate Change, 2014)

The science is not being given a fair hearing.  A visit to Youtube will turn up multiple cases of institutional scientists who have been muzzled by their employers and/or ridiculed by nay-sayers for expressing non-aligned points of view.

The reigning paradigm closes out the opportunity to evaluate all relevant emerging technologies, including coal and nuclear, on their merits.

Environmental protection is important to me, but it is not my only goal. I am all for so-called renewable and ‘clean’ energy sources (Who isn’t?), and the technological advances in these areas are exciting.  Their candidature does however need to be considered honestly and in objective terms, including true cost, free of cross-subsidisation, free of spurious alarmism, and cognisant of the ongoing need for reliable and affordable base load electricity, whatever its source.

I don’t think of carbon dioxide as dirty, or dangerous.  It’s what plants use in order to make biomass and oxygen.  If they have more, they do better, and so do we.




This scam is a disgrace

The quote?

For years, the US – and the rest of the Western world—has afforded a climate in which Attorneys General and Senators and Secretaries of State and even Presidents can conspire with university professors and heads of government science institutions and environmental PR companies and green NGOs can exploit green issues in which to wage continual war on both the economy and the consumer, often enriching themselves in the process while the rest of us get poorer and more constrained by needless taxes and regulations.     …….

This scam is a disgrace and has gone on far too long.


The source?


My observations?

  • There are strong differences of opinion on all sorts of things.  They persist, regardless of educational level or intellect.
  • What we espouse, is affected both by what we believe personally, and by what we perceive that others around us believe.
  • To speak of ‘the science of climate change’  as if it’s unambiguous, stable, complete, or unanimous, is to reflect an ignorance of science itself.
  • All life forms, plant and animal, respire.  They take in oxygen and glucose;  and they give out carbon dioxide and water (and energy).  Plants also photosynthesise (while there is daylight).  Photosynthesis is respiration in reverse.  Plants take in carbon dioxide and water (and energy), and they give out oxygen and glucose.  Without carbon dioxide, there’d be no oxygen.  Sort of takes your breath away, doesn’t it.
  • There is a tide in the affairs of men.  James Delingpole, the author of this piece, refers to a ‘tipping point’, and to ‘a dramatic shift’.  Time will tell.  The challenge for the strategists is whether to move ‘against the tide’, or to wait until the run is obvious.
  • We are talking big business.  Huge.  According to Delingbole, ‘the global decarbonisation industry alone is worth at least $1.5 trillion a year.’  For some it’s a conscience issue, and a policy issue.  For some it’s an expense.   For some others it’s a revenue line.  And for others again, it is all of the above.