Edvard Mogstad, Ørje, Norway, June 2024
First, I want to credit Dr. Towsey for his sober paper on the vast history of climate science (NR 2, March 2024). In the original paper, posted on your website, he refers to various astrophysical scientists before he gives his opinion apparently in favour of the current mainstream CO2-hypothesis; that man-made burning of fossil fuels since 18th century resulted in a “greenhouse effect” of global warming
Interestingly, Dr. Towsey also takes other geophysical aspects into account such as the shifting of the geographic poles. In a discourse in Kolkata in 1986, the seer-philosopher P.R. Sarkar predicted that such shift would result in major world upheavals. We who were there were all somewhat bewildered as to what sort of pole shift Sarkar was referring to. Dr. Towsey, in this paper, makes it very clear that the geographical poles, and not the magnetic, have the capacity to effect climate changes, and he gives proper scientific references regarding that phenomenon.
I have some reservations, though, for parts of Towsey’s presentation. In Figure 5 in his paper he points to a strong correlation between global warming and CO2 contents. But when the graph is enlarged, it is seen that the warmth curve rises prior to the rise in CO2, about some five to six hundred years earlier. That is, global warming appears to be the cause, and the rising CO2 the effect, and not the other way round. The warming heats up the oceans, slowly, which in turn gradually have to let go of CO2, following Henry’s law. The warming is primarily caused by variations of radiation from the sun, from its different cycles.
The shortest cycle is quite well known among the public, the eleven year sunspot cycle. There are, however, many other cycles, with time spans fitting inside the interglacial periods. In fact, several studies have determined that, in addition to Schwabe’s 11-year sunspot cycle and its associated 22-year Hale magnetic cycle, solar activity is characterised by several longer oscillations. In the scientific literature these are now known as the cycles of Bray ± Hallstatt (2100±2500 years), Eddy (800±1200 years), Suess ± de Vries (200±250 years), Jose (155±185 years), from Gleissberg (80±100 years), the 55±65-year cycles and others: see the numerous citations in Scafetta (2020). Identical fluctuations are also observed in climate records, suggesting a close link between solar variability and climate.
Dr. Towsey does not deny or ignore Nicola Scafetta’s research but maintains the mainstream opinion, that “This proposal [i.e. that the solar radiance is more important than the rise of CO2] is rejected by the vast majority of climate scientists because there are no known mechanisms by which such gravitational interactions and the accompanying solar irradiance would be strong enough to exert the observed climate effects (Schmidt et al., 2022).”
But the fact of the fluctuations of Earth temperature before 18th century remains (Figure 5) and cannot be rejected, rather they should be investigated and tentatively explained. Scafetta tries to explore the reasons behind these fluctuations, which can not be burning of fossil fuels, they are too early. What “the vast majority” do reject, is that these mechanisms are more important than the modern rise of CO2.
Well, below is an attempted explanation for the “weak” mechanisms, by the Norwegian astronomer Harald Yndestad:
The position of the planets affects the sun’s radiation
NASA started satellite-based measurement of radiation from the sun in 1979. In 2014, researchers from NASA were able to publish a coherent data series for the years 1700-2013. An examination of the data series, revealed the signature (periods) of the major planets Jupiter (12 years), Saturn (29 years), Uranus (84 years) and Neptune (164 years) (JSUN). The same signature was identified in the Sun’s rotation around the barycentres of the Solar System (barycentres are centres of mass in the solar system, a common centre of gravity between the Sun and the planets). There is a direct correlation between the elliptical orbits of the planets, the rotation of the Sun around the barycentres of the Solar System, and total radiation from the Sun.
Yndestad, H., & Solheim, J. (2017). The influence of solar system oscillation on the variability of the total solar irradiance. New Astronomy, 51, 135–152. doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2016.08.020. ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/2473902.
The explanation is that the elliptical orbits of the planets change the speed of the Sun’s rotation around the barycentres of the solar system. Changes in the Sun’s rotation speed affect the Sun’s internal dynamo and radiation from the Sun’s surface. The Sun has the least radiation when the planets have the greatest speed closest to the Sun. The radiation from the Sun has a deep minimum when the UN planets are closest to the Sun at the same time, a Grand minimum when the SUN planets are closest to the Sun, and a Fimbul winter minimum when all the JSUN planets are closest to the Sun at the same time. The sum of the JSUN periods can be presented as a TSI index that represents how radiation from the sun varies over time.
Yndestad H. 2022. Jovian Planets and Lunar Nodal Cycles in the Earth’s Climate Variability Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences. May 10. 2022. doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2022.839794.
Scafetta admits that the mechanisms appears weak, but he challenges the astronomic community to find better explanations, since Scafetta himself has found no better that fit so well into the oscillations.
Whatever the reasons behind pre-industrial cycles, what scares the public today is the unprecedented rise in CO2 level since 1950, Figure 6 in Towsey’s article. Even if, in earlier periods, predating the Ice Ages, there have been much higher levels of CO2.
Accordingly, what seems relevant for our discussion is whether there is a greenhouse effect from manmade CO2, since 1950.
Personally, I have not reached any definite conclusion since there are many natural scientists here in the Nordics who go against the mainstream. Also, predictions, models and prognoses have proven chronically wrong—“grossly exaggerated”, to quote Petteri Taalas, leader of World (and Finland’s) Meteorological Organization.
The natural conclusion to those prognoses is that it’ is not real but rather fake science! Among others, State Meteorologist of Tromsø, Norway, Gjertrud Røyland writes in an essay titled “I am not a climate denier. I doubt, however, that there is any connection between CO2 and global warming”:
Future climate projections are presented as scientific facts, and this is where the big miss happens. Facts about the future will come in the future. Models will never be exact either at the micro level or at the macro level. To claim otherwise would be contrary to scientific working methods where different hypotheses are constantly tested, verified against reality (observations), improved models (algorithms) and tested again. Monopolizing the truth, such as claiming that “the average global temperature will increase by 2 degrees in 20 years”, will prevent true research where one constantly searches further to find connections and produce new knowledge. True research depends on someone asking new questions, in order to find new answers.
Then to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which appears as an auto-answer every time you ask questions about these “scientific facts” about the climate. I wonder, this 97% agreement in the UN climate panel, what is it about? Could it be that they have agreed to eliminate the uncertainties in the climate models? If so, they have lost their scientific integrity. Another thing I wonder is why it is so important to appear so cock sure? And this is where I sense that there has been an unfortunate connection between science and politics. If there is a political agenda behind it, science will no longer be open and searching, but will be steered in a controlled direction. Is this what makes it so uncomfortable to ask questions that are not politically correct? And is that why those who do not support current climate policy are labelled as climate deniers.
“I am not a climate denier. I doubt, however, that there is any connection between CO2 and global warming,” Gjertrud Røyland. Derimot.no, 21.5.2024. derimot.no/meterolog-jeg-er-ingen-klimafornekter-men-jeg-tviler-pa-sammenhengen-mellom-co2-og-global-oppvarming/
The first world leader who came out against manmade global warming, was Margareth Thatcher, who used the CO2 hypothesis in order to crush the coal miners’ strike, the Miners Union and the labour unions in general. Immediately, funding for research related to global warming was easily obtained.
The political and plutocratic exploitation of global warming would be a theme for a future article.
Dear Neohumanist Review,
This letter is in response to Edvard Mogstad’s criticism of climate science in general and his one-sided support for Nicola Scafetta and also his false claim that Margareth Thatcher used the miner’s strike to help fund research related to global warming.
Firstly, Scafetta has been criticized for a lack of transparency. He has refused to disclose the computer code needed to reproduce his research results, making it difficult for other scientists to verify or replicate his findings.
Secondly, there are concerns about selective reading of scientific literature. Scafetta has been accused of cherry-picking studies that support his views while ignoring contradictory evidence. For instance, he cites papers on galactic cosmic rays influencing climate without mentioning the numerous studies that have found little correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover.
Thirdly, Scafetta’s work places an overemphasis on solar and astronomical factors. He argues that at least 60% of observed warming since 1970 is due to natural cycles in the solar system. This view, however, is not supported by mainstream climate science, which attributes most recent warming to human greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, Scafetta’s hypotheses about astronomical cycles influencing Earth’s climate lack a plausible physical mechanism to explain how these cycles could have such a large effect. Other researchers have published papers claiming Scafetta’s methods produce larger errors than he acknowledges.
It’s also worth noting that some of Scafetta’s climate papers have been published in solar/astronomy journals rather than climate science journals, potentially bypassing rigorous review by climate experts. Additionally, unlike IPCC projections, Scafetta’s temperature predictions are not tied to specific greenhouse gas emission scenarios, making them less useful for policy planning.
In conclusion, while Scafetta has published peer-reviewed work, his methods, conclusions, and unwillingness to share data have been widely criticized within the climate science community. His views represent a minority position that is not well-supported by the broader body of climate research.
Finally, I am writing to address some inaccuracies in Mogstad’s statement regarding Margaret Thatcher’s stance on climate change and its relation to the miners’ strike.
Firstly, while Margaret Thatcher did indeed speak about climate change in the late 1980s, she was neither the first world leader to do so, nor did she use this issue to suppress the miners’ strike. The timing simply doesn’t align – the miners’ strike occurred in 1984-1985, while Thatcher’s notable speech on climate change to the Royal Society was in 1988, well after the strike had concluded.
Secondly, there’s no evidence to suggest that Thatcher used climate change as a tool against the miners or unions. Her actions during the strike were primarily motivated by economic and political factors, not environmental concerns.
The miners’ strike itself was a complex industrial dispute centered on pit closures and job losses. Thatcher’s government focused on economic arguments and maintaining coal supplies during this conflict. Climate change and CO2 concerns were not significant factors in this dispute.
It’s worth noting that while climate research did receive more attention and funding in the late 1980s and beyond, this was not an immediate result of Thatcher’s actions against the miners. Her engagement with climate change issues came later and was separate from her earlier confrontations with the miners and unions.
Thatcher’s 1988 speech did help bring climate change to wider public attention, but it was not directly connected to her policies during the miners’ strike several years earlier.
I hope this clarification helps to provide a more accurate perspective on these historical events.
Best wishes, Roar Bjonnes, co-founder Systems Change Alliance