HenryP

Dear friends and family in Christ,

 I am not sure where to begin my story. I feel a bit like the Joseph of the bible. He was able to correctly predict 7 years of abundance and 7 years of famine.  He probably observed the direction of the winds during droughts ((Gen. 41:23&27) and may have had some access to the records of the flooding of the Nile (the Egyptians were good at keeping an eye on this).  Around the time when I heard for the first time of “Climategate”, the  e-mail controversy surrounding the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, I was led to conduct my own investigations as to the extent of the problem of  anthropogenic global warming (AGW) caused by the  emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). As a hobby…

 I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.  

It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2)  or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.

I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima. Here you can see the results.

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima

0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.

That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.

 HENRY, THE DENIER

 Having effectively found little or no real evidence of AGW in the temperature records, I did notice that anyone (like me) now querying the “certainty” of “climate change” being due mostly to AGW, are mocked or vilified in the media and the blogosphere. For the first time I am being censored and called “ a denier” or worse, a liar. However, it also appeared to me that most people do not even understand the very basics of the chemistry involved. Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-. 

This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly. 

 Anyway, I did decide to take my quest a bit further by trying to predict the future of our temperature development on earth. Indeed, I did find that climate change is happening, because natural global warming is over. I found that from around the start of the new millennium, earth has started to cool globally. My own data set on maxima shows this very clearly. However, even without my own results (in case you do not trust them or me): the four major data sets measuring the average global air- and sea temperatures, also show that we have started cooling down for the past 11 years (this is the equivalent average time of one full solar cycle). Clearly you can see that the trend is negative from 2002:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

From the above simple compilation of linear trends in these 4 major global data sets, you can also see that before 2000 we were still warming and that after 2000 we started cooling….

WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE, AHEAD?

 For my own data, I have done a best fit for the drop in global maximum temperatures. Setting the speed of warming/cooling out against time, you get acceleration, or, in this case, deceleration, in degrees C / t². When looking at that plot for the first time, it was as if God Himself gave me a revelation. The curve exactly looks like the speed of a thrown object plotted against time. My results suggest that earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling. 

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

Indeed, I hope that this is the best fit for my data, because any of the other best fits that I could think of, would have us end up in much more global cooling. The results of my plot also suggest that this global cooling already started in 1995 and will last until ca. 2038. Also, from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average  temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…

THE FLOODING OF THE NILE

Just like Joseph probably noted the variation in the flooding of the Nile within one solar cycle (which indeed can sometimes be longer than 12 years),   I decided to do the same thing for the 88 year Gleissberg solar/weather cycle…. There are good records of the flooding of the Nile, for example here:

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
to quote from the above paper:
“A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
The range in meters between a plentiful flood and a drought flood seems minor in the numbers but real in consequence….

end quote

According to my table for maxima, I calculate the date where the sun decided to take a nap (that is just a figure of speech, in fact it is probably a “wake-up”), as being around 1995, and not 1990 as William Arnold predicted.
This is looking at energy-in. I think earth reached its maximum output (means) a few years later, around 1998/1999.

Anyway, either way, (a few years error is fine!), look again at my best sine wave plot for my data,
now see:

1900 minimum flooding – end of the warming
1950 maximum flooding – end of cooling
1995 minimum flooding – end of warming.
predicted 2035-2040 – maximum flooding – end of cooling.

There is a clear and pertinent correlation with the best fit sine wave that I proposed for the observed current drop in global maximum temperatures.

 THE O_X , H_XO_X  AND N_XO_X   CONNECTION

 I figured that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.

I had now found three confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output of E-UV. It is part of creation. Otherwise there could be run away warming or runaway cooling, and probably no weather (rain!) at all, making life impossible…..

 THE BIBLICAL CONNECTION

 My A-C wave for the drop in maximum temperatures obviously does not reflect exactly at the same time what happens to temperatures on earth. Earth has an intricate way of storing energy in the oceans. There is also earth’s own volcanic action, lunar interaction, the turning of Earth’s inner iron core, electromagnetic force changes, etc. It seems to me that a delay of about 5 years either way is quite normal. That would place the half cycle time as observed from earth at around 50 years, on average. 50 years of warming followed by 50 years of cooling. It seems to me the ancients knew this. Remember 7 x 7 years + 1 Jubilee year?

SO, NOW WHAT?

 As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, less clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.

As the people in Anchorage (Alaska) have noted,

http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html

the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. And it seems NOBODY is telling the farmers there that it is not going to get any better.

HOW CAN WE STOP THIS GLOBAL COOLING?

It looks like all the media and the whole world still believe that somehow global warming will soon be back on track again. Clearly, as shown, this is just wishful thinking. All current results show that global cooling will continue. As pointed out earlier, those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever. On same issue, there are those that argue that it is better to be safe than sorry; but, really, as things are looking now, they are now also beginning to stand in the way of progress. Those still pointing to melting ice and glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.

Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.

 To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.

It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 (due to a change in the direction of the winds) was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left (2013 – 88 = 1925). 

WHAT MUST WE DO?

 1)    We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.

2)    We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.

3)    We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), 

There are now many results from skeptical scientists that support my position and results, e.g.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/

 http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

http://www.landscheidt.info/

Best wishes

HenryP

PO Box 912887

Silverton

0127

THE SUN IS GOING TO TAKE A NAP

Of  late, I am aware of a flurry of reports and efforts by biased media and  un-informed  presidents,  governments and various funding-dependant  institutes to scare people about “climate change” due to global warming and that we have “to do something”  to curb the use of fossil fuels. These reports claim that “thousands” of scientists support the “certainty” of climate change being due mostly to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Skeptic scientists that challenge this position are mocked or vilified.   

Some of these reports blatantly show CO2 going up together with temperature, as if (all) warming is caused by more CO2.  Any (good) chemist  knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of  bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat (UV) => CO2 (g) + OH-. 

This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? Smoking causes cancer, but cancer does not cause smoking.

I am not saying climate change is not happening. Climate change is happening, because global warming is over.  We have started to cool globally.  All major data sets measuring the average global air- and sea temperatures, including my own, now show that we have started cooling down for the past 11 years (which is the equivalent time of one full solar cycle).

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend

My results show that earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle,  with 44 years of  warming followed by 44 years of cooling. My own data set, where I have been monitoring global maximum temperatures, proves that all warming in the past was almost entirely due to natural reasons and that global cooling will now accelerate further.  I expect more La Nina’s occurring due to less energy going in the oceans.  In my opinion, it will only be 4-5 years before this cooling effect will be felt by just about everyone in the whole world.

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

Indeed it is this global cooling that is generally causing more rain, more snow and cooler weather, globally, on average, whilst some places might get less precipitation.

(Namely, assuming equal amounts of water vapour in the air, remember that when water vapour in the atmosphere cools more, you get more clouds and more precipitation, at certain places, depending on latitude and wind factors).

As the farmers in Anchorage (Alaska) have noted,

http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html

the cold weather is so bad there that they do not get much of any harvests. And it seems NOBODY is telling them there that it is not going to get any better. Kimberley (in South Africa) is another example where cooling has been quite significant in the past decade. 

The results of my investigations suggest that this global cooling will last until ca. 2038. Also, it looks to me that earth’s energy stores are depleted now and that means that average  temperatures will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2036. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950 or 1951, more or less, when global warming started, roughly…  

Those that point to melting ice and glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in (maxima)  and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2012-88= we are in 1924. Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar? Back then, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. But by 1945 all that ‘lost” ice had frozen back.

I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will come back, from 2015-2035 as also happened from 1925-1945.

There are now many results from skeptical scientists that support my position and results, e.g.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/

 http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

http://www.landscheidt.info/

The sad story is, that where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling, for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!), and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOODS!), the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists, i.e. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become.

So here we are, it is 2013, and nobody is addressing the real problems that we face due to the change in climate and the coming cold.

Henry P

PO Box 912887

Silverton

0127

South Africa

Fax. +27865035174

Male and Female

Please note that I have nothing against Angus Buchanon! I admire him
for what he is doing. I loved the movie “Faith like Potatoes”. In fact, after that movie, God gave me a new fresh dream that is now fast becoming a reality.
But when I was asked by someone to come along to his Mighty Men’s conference, I refused…  I simply do not or cannot go anywhere if my wife is not also invited.

I am, in fact, quite puzzled as to why there are still people who
believe in keeping male and female apart at religious meetings and what the
reason or motivation for that is. I am going from the principle that  nothing sinister is intended (like apartheid
was), but that perhaps it is just simply ignorance. However, this type of ignorance
can lead to wrong policies, wrongful stereotypical behaviors or even simply
wrongdoing. Like the recent ads I saw from PnP and Sunlight on Women’s day
(placing women in the kitchen………) This subject really is important as some
churches are still fighting about women being leaders in their churches……Therefore,
let me draw your attention to the following words of  Jesus:

3 Some Pharisees came to him
to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for
any and every reason?”4 “Haven’t you
read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male
and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave
his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh’?6 So they are no longer two,
but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”7 “Why then,” they
asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of
divorce and send her away?”8 Jesus replied, “Moses
permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was
not this way from the beginning.9 I tell you that anyone who
divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman
commits adultery.”10 The disciples said to him, “If this is
the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”11 Jesus replied, “Not
everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.  Matt 19:3-11 (NIV)

In the days that Jesus spoke these words divorce was a
major social injustice, resulting in many a woman ending up in the gutter, becoming
either a beggar or a prostitute. For the husband it was easy.
He could give her a letter of divorce and put her on the street. But there were
no laws protecting the woman. And there was little hope for such a woman of
ever finding a job. Her family would not always want her back, as she was
considered just an additional burden. Women were not allowed in educational
institutions so there was no way that she could have learned a trade or
anything like that. A woman, like a slave, was merely one of a man’s
possessions. Suffer the poor woman that could not bear her husband a child…..

What Jesus said here was quite revolutionary for that
particular time. Proving Moses wrong was considered almost equal to blasphemy
and one can imagine that Jesus’ exposure of this injustice was met with little
enthusiasm from the predominantly male-orientated society in which He found
Himself. Small wonder that Jesus had many female friends. He was the only man
who would defend the woman caught in adultery against her male-accusers (John
8:3-11). During this incident Jesus wrote something on the ground. He then
said: “He that is without sin, let him throw the first stone.” It is often
thought that Jesus wrote down the sins or some of the sins of the accusers. For
fear of exposure they did not start throwing the stones, as they had most
certainly intended to do. Each of them then turned away, tails between the legs
so to speak.

 Jesus makes no mistake when He exposes the
root cause of the problem on hand: “It was not this way from the beginning”
(vs. 8), the “beginning” meaning Paradise off
course. Very wisely He chooses to quote Gen 2:24 (vs. 5) to illustrate the
argument. One flesh made up of two (equal) parts. That was indeed how it was in
the Garden of Eden. It was only after man had sinned that we see the balance of
equality being disturbed by a curse of God, positioning the man to “rule” over
the woman. (See Gen 3:16). When referring to this passage, many of the
subsequent writers of the Bible have thought that this meant that the husband
must be the boss of his family and that a man must always be the head of a
church. For some strange reason
people thought that this particular curse could not be broken. A typical
example of this can be found in 1 Tim 2:11-14 where Paul argues that a woman
may not teach or have authority in the church because it was Eve who was
deceived, not Adam. A silly argument really….

 But Jesus clearly wants marriage restored to how it
was in the beginning, that is: before the fall of man! (vs. 8). He knew
exactly what had happened as a result of sin. (Gen 3:16-19). But He also knew
that He Himself would become sin for us so that we could be free of all curses
that had resulted from sin (e.g. Gal 3:13, Deut 21:23). This we may claim,
every time. That is His promise to us – that is why we believe in Him. We are
free from the curse of sin! We do not have to accept anything that happened as
a result of sin; not even death. (John 10:28).

So, in effect, Jesus was indeed the first man
who stood up for the rights of women. No wonder that the women of those days
liked to listen to Him. And that He was at home with women. They remained loyal
to Him, even after His death, and this is most probably the reason why they got
to see Him first after His resurrection. But mankind still took more than
nineteen centuries to lay claim to the equality of male and female. It was only
fairly recently that most churches have adopted the principle of equality for
the sexes. Why did it take us so long? It’s a long story. Looking back now, one
could argue that most of the confusion was caused by the otherwise very honest
- and very truthful apostle Paul. 

I think we must forgive him this oversight. One must not forget that there is a big cultural difference between the people then
and modern man. Also, traditions are not easily broken and Paul was strongly influenced by the Jewish traditions. Even he must have understood the principle of equality – because he did lay the very foundation for the argument—

There is neither Jew nor Greek,
slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus …(Gal.
3:28)

My wife and I are one in Christ.  I am glad about that! I do not have to be the
boss! Jesus is the Head of our house. Spiritually, there is no difference
between male and female. So now it is like it was in Paradise.
Likewise, because we are one in Christ and because he is Head of the Church, there
should be no restrictions on women becoming leaders in our churches.

Henry

Global cooling has started.

For those of you who think that earth is still warming: you are wrong. From a sample of 45 weather stations taken randomly from all over the world, I find that a turning point was reached around 1995. Note that the sample of weather stations is well balanced by latitude and 70/30 sea – inland. The plot for the acceleration / deceleration of warming/cooling (in degrees K/ t² ) appears to be natural looking, symmetrical, like the curve of a thrown object.

Method

The (black) figures you are looking at in the tables below (allow some time to load up), represent the average change in degrees Celsius (or Kelvin) per annum, from the average temperatures measured during the period indicated. These are the slopes of the least square fit equations or “ linear trendlines” for the periods indicated, as calculated, i.e. the value before the x.

The average temperature data from the stations were obtained from http://www.tutiempo.net. I tried to avoid stations with many missing data. Nevertheless, it is very difficult finding weather stations that have no missing data at all. If a month’s data was found missing or if I found that the average for a month was based on less than 15 days of that month’s data, I looked at the average temperatures of that month of the preceding- and following year, averaged these, and in this way estimated the temperatures of that particular month’s missing data.

Results

We note from my 3 tables below that Maxima, Means and Minima have all turned negative (from warming to cooling) between 12 and 22 years ago. The change in signal is best observed in that of the Maxima where we can see a gradual decline of the maximum temperatures from +0.036 degrees C per annum (over the last 38 years) to -0.016 (when taken over the last 12 years).

If we plot the global measurements for the change in Maxima, Means and Minima against the relevant time periods, it can be shown that the best fit for each of the curves is given by a polynominal of the 2nd order (parabolic fit).

Namely, for maxima it is

y= -0.00006 X2+ 0.00480X -0.06393

r²= 0.997

Update

I have added a few more stations, (including Washington DC) which ramped up my r²= 0.998

The speed of warming/cooling for maxima now is 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).

For means, it is

y= -0.0001 X2 +0.0064X – 0.0778
r²= 0.959

For minima, it is

y= -0.00008 X2 + 0.00408X – 0.04178
r²= 0.985

Using the maxima plot, we note that at 0 (zero) when there was a turning point, i.e. no warming or cooling, we find x=17 years. From this sample of weather stations I can therefore estimate with reasonable accuracy that earth received its maximum energy input from the sun via the atmosphere during 2012-17=1995.

(if we are tempted to look at the root of same binominal on the other side, i.e. when global warming started, we find 68, suggesting that the global warming cycle started officially somewhere in 2012-68=1944. UPDATE: I realised this  result is speculative, as I do not have any real measurements from 1944-1973 but we are using an approximation from a probable plot. However, I did realize since some time ago that the plot I was looking at is really  like an a-c wave. I have subsequently been able to determine that the best sine wave for this plot would be one with a wavelength of 88 years. That would mean that the begnining of warming started somewhere around 1995-44=1951. That means we are now on a cooling curve unil ca. 1995+44=2039.

It can also be shown that the nature of the graph for means is one that lags a bit on the graph for maxima: earth has a store where it keeps its energy and a lot of that energy only comes out a bit later. Although the plot for means with rsquare 0.959 is still impressive, showing there is a definite relationship, I would not use it to determine the roots to give me the actual time when earth reached its maximum energy output (i.e. when it was the “warmest”). However, I would generally agree with the available datasets like RSS, UAH, Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2 that that must have been a few years after 1995.

Discussion/Conclusion

Like I asked myself, you are going to ask why no one but me has figured that global cooling has already started. Your first point could be that my sample is too small. My argument against this would be that I already got similar results (for the longest period) with a sample less than half the size. See:

http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

I also note that people like Roy Spencer and others got similar results than I report in my tables here. For example, RS reports a warming of 0.14 degree K per decade for the past 33 years. This is almost exactly the same result as reported in my table for Means here: 0.013 degree K/annum over the past 32 years.

The reason why I think scientists have not picked up on this is because they did not follow the same statistical principles that I applied when looking at all the data.

They might also have missed it because they kept looking at absolute data. Remember that we are looking at extremely small change. The problem when you measure temperature is: ERROR. How do you know your “thermometer” (recorder) reads right? You have to calibrate it. At regular intervals. In the method I used, I looked at the differences between the measurements which as such is a lot less dependent on calibration.

People would do well to take note of my results, as the drop in global temperature as shown in my table for Means (=average daily temperatures) of 12 x 0.019 = 0.2 degrees C over the past 12 years has been steeper than what I would have expected from the observed drop in maxima. The observed cooling trend could still accelerate further. It also appears from the results in my tables that earth’s energy store is big, but it looks depleted due to the maxima having been dropping for quite some time now. Earth’s temperature is also dropping now. Periods of cooling in the past have usually been associated with crop failures and subsequent periods of poverty and starvation. Hoping that these results will simply go away is like an ostriche putting its head in the sand. By checking the results at your local weather station you will be able to pick up on the particular trend in your own area and make the right decision on whether to sow or not to sow….Buying some extra warm cloths seems like a good idea to me.

(Please take some time to give my blog a star rating. Thanks)

Regards.

Henry