Warming: Why the FRACTALITY Solution May Make More Sense- Than the Carbon Solution.

Update: July 12, 2015: Scientists now agreeing: the Maunder Minimum (decades of global cooling/drought/famine-every 400 years like clockwork)- is arriving NOW.

Dan Winter- suggests that the clearly agreed on mechanism of the SOLAR ACTIVITY COLLAPSE- (Maunder Minimum): the alternating synchronous polarity of the Sun's opposite pole magnetics (see pic here:) - IS IN FACT CLEARLY BY THE SHAPE OF THE COLLAPSE WAVE PATTERN - A PHASE CONJUGATE (hence implosive) COLLAPSE.

SO- the spiritual literature suggesting a (Solar) age of bliss/rapture - is probably a long wave in conjugate implosive (mind generating) negentropy.

Exactly as we proved is the case for kundalini / bliss...
AND the nature of the Earth's Schumann Resonance cascade:
(implosive conjugate pump wave- which can be fixed!)

Dan Winter's ( new book: fractalfield.com/fractalspacetime ) showed the SCHUMANN RESONANCE can be tweaked

to BE the perfect (negentropic) phase conjugate collapse! - Meaning we can FIX THE CHAOS!

These are the exact measured frequency harmonics of the
Earth’s SCHUMANN RESONANCE (ignore Greg Braden’s confusion)- ALMOST an exact negentropic phase conjugate pump wave-
SO - CAN YOU GUESS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE now
to make GAIA emerge from chaos????????
Hint- fix the music, fix the grid- it can be proven to eliminate pollution and more..! www.fractalfield.com/ fractalspacetime

Peter Taylor our close friend- climate change consultant for many technical institutions- agrees about the MAUNDER MINIMUM being the issue of the moment- more than the carbon issue: (our original article with him here:

Peter Taylor- former advisor and consultant to the UN (International Maritime Organisation) on ocean pollution issues - and to Greenpeace, and the UK Government at different times. His expertise is as a science and policy analyst rather than just a climate scientist - suggests he is well qualified to review the science.
Peter: "..in my book I estimate that carbon may be responsible for 20% max of the (climate change) driving force - there is plenty of evidence but it is over-interpreted (by a factor of 3 or 4)."

(Help support Peter- order from him at - www.ethos-uk.com

What is clear- is that climate IS in chaos-
what is also clear- is that carbon is not the simple problem OR the simple solution.
SO- what DOES allow systems to emerge from CHAOS??

Data below from Peter Taylor, comment / solution here from Dan Winter ( www.goldenmean.info ) :

Answer: fractality (/phase conjugation) is how wave systems self organize.
Our global magnetic lines CAN be made more fractal (see dodeca stellations).
This allows the compression which DOES eliminate heat during compression (a solution to warming) -
PLUS - provides the necessary wave mechanic to increase the tendancy to SELF ORGANIZE - EMERGE FROM CHAOS!
( see- Dan Winter- FRACTALITY SOLUTIONS:
www.goldenmean.info/budapest08/physicsoverview.html &
www.goldenmean.info/goldenproof )

In physics- the only experiments which have produced self organization out of chaos- have been phase conjugation (optics)... we present the view the fractality is phase conjugate self organization optimized.

It is well documented that the major variables which appear to make life possible on Earth (like temperature, pressure, atmosphere content, moisture, etc etc) -
have a SELF REGULATING / SELF ORGANIZING quality ( thanks to people like Lovelock: "GAIA HYPOTHESIS" ).

We published dramatic new mathematics / proof that the Golden Ratio ( dodec/icos Earth grid for example) causes FRACTAL phase conjugation and self organization (and the necessary centripetal forces- responsible for all of life) at www.fractalfield.com/mathematicsoffusion

Many books / documents have shown the essential DODECA / ICOSA ( golden ratio based - outline- see animations at link above) - of the Earths magnetic grid ( like "Anti Gravity and the World Grid" Becker and Hagens)

(Instead of just simplistically / childishly blaming the carbon dioxide variable) - We MUST make the connection between organizing our FRACTAL - macro / outside - AND inner - magnetic environment - (not cutting Earth energy lines needlessly - highway / building construction without -magnetic dowsing) if we are to maintain the (fractal) self organizing quality of our environment!. (the subject of this article). - See also RESTORED CENTRIPETAL FORCES: fractalfield.com/centripetalforces/

How- fractality- nesting - embedding- produces wave systems (like climate) which EMERGE FROM CHAOS:

Imagine the cycles within cycles Peter refers to just below- TWEAKED- to nest (superlooping) in the physics of perfect embedding (fractality) which produces self-organization OUT of chaos - examples are the perfect nesting of cycles in the heart / hrv which produce immune health ( goldenmean.info/holarchy ) - and the perfect nesting of events in TIME by golden ratio - which allows time (charge rotation) - to emerge from chaos ( book: "Spiral Calendar"). Our next paper will extend the fractal GOLDEN MEAN / PHASE CONJUGATE physics of Planck LENGTH and TIME - we showed to be the cause of gravity ( goldenmean.info/goldenproof ) - to ALL calculations of sacred time and length -units.. (Global Scaling got the Golden Ratio right- but they forgot to include the definition of sacred scale- starts with Planck ..)

Peter Taylor commented here :

"Hi Dan, Thanks, that looks great. A couple of points:
I can see where you are coming from regarding the fractality - if we can somehow direct the 'grid' we could influence the pattern of vortices - but I am yet to be convinced of how it can be done!

This is how i see the issue of chaos:
* there is an overall pattern to the climate - sunlight comes in with most wattage per square metre coming in at the equator - and the key is absorption and storage of this energy as heat in the upper ocean (although humans are mostly interested in the temperature on land, this is almost entirely dictated by heat transfer from ocean to land by wind, clouds and rain)

* the equatorial zone has a permanent heat surplus and hence if not dissipated, the planet would cook - ocean currents and rising clouds of water vapour carry this heat away from the equator toward the poles - which are areas of permanent heat deficit

* the climate system has one main oscillation and several minor:

- the main is the 5C switch between ice-age (90K years) and inter-glacial (10-20K) which appears driven by orbital changes and inclination of the Earth to the Sun and this has its main effect at about 60N in terms of watts/square metre and the extent of snow cover/albedo feedback (HOWEVER - models of this as a system cannot replicate the rapid ENDING of ice-ages - the descent INTO the ice-age is much slower - so another factor appears to be at work - this may be a galactic cycle related to 26,000 years and its harmonics and may involve superwaves, cosmic dust incursions and the like;

- the minor oscillations relate to each of the ocean basins and an overall ocean circulation known as the 'conveyor' - the latter has a turnover of 1000-1500 years; there appears to be a 400 year cycle, with 800 years between peaks, and evidence for 2500 and 5000 year cycles - these MAY be timed by solar cycles - either from variations in output of shortwave energy (light and UV) or magnetic energy (which modulates the Earth's magnetic field and affects the flux of ionising radiation and cloud cover) - these cycles are now the subject of intense research with no consensus yet emerging;

- and then there are smaller scale oscillations - in the Pacific northern waters (PDO= 30 years), Arctic basin (AO=70 years) Atlantic (10-20 and 60-100 years), central Pacific (ENSO= 2-5 years) and southern oceans (SO= 2 years);

These 'waveforms' all interact with each other - at times amplifying and at times interfering. The main thrust of global warming can be explained by the rise from a deep low 400 years ago and the combination of several positive waves between 1980 and 2005 - if I am right in this (and only a handful of scientists are looking at this) then the fall into 2030-2040 could be quite deep - several Russian scientists as well as Theodore Landscheidt expect this - and they are working not from an harmonic analysis of the cycles on Earth, but an harmonic analysis of the transfer of angular momentum from the giant planets to the solar disc - simple Newtonian physics - though the internal mechanism whereby this impacts upon the sun's output is not yet known -

on this latter issue - it should be pointed out that NASA's solar experts unanimously announced that cycle 23 (the previous) would be higher than 22 (it wasn't) and that 24 would be higher still (now they have backtracked and expect it to be lower than 23) - and this was based on new advanced models of prediction drawn from research on the internal dynamo and the magnetic field - NASA's team have been confounded by the extended low magnetic status (absence of sunspots) and only one of the team now argues for a rapid ramping up to 2012 and solar maximum - the rest think a low cycle (say 90 spots average at peak compared to 120-200) with a peak in spring 2013.

Landscheidt has been right so far - predicting that 1990 (cycle 22) would be the long-term max, that cycle 23 would be lower and 24 even lower, leading to zero spots through 25 and 26 (a Dalton-type minimum) or through several more cycle (Maunder type) through 2040 and beyond (Maunder was about 5 cycles without spots).

These solar periods can be monitored way-back through the isotope records in ice and tree rings - and there are correlations between the 11, 22, 80, 160, 220, 400 and 800, and 1500 year cycles - perhaps also 2500 and 5000 - BUT the correlations are not exact and nor are the ocean cycles - which makes for predictions at the 50-100 year level impossible. That's why, even if the computer modelling fraternity were willing to try, they would not be able to get enough resolution in the models to predict the next 50 or 100 years. Thus, they create an artificial 'equilibrium' starting condition, which is then 'forced' by external additions such as CO2. In reality, of course, the climate is never in equilibrium and science can never know exactly where it is in the cycle in order to define initial conditions for the model (which is why it uses the artificial equilibrium!).

So - to return to fractality. If I understand correctly, you propose affecting the system by reducing the chaotic component - which is a component in an otherwise non-chaotic pattern. Unless you were proposing an overall undirected increase in coherence - rather like a geomagnetic peace mantra - then you would have to know at what point to apply leverage and what outcomes you wanted! That is tricky territory.

Firstly, you have to decide whether what Nature has in store, should be redirected! If she is going to take the temperature down - it will happen thus:

* the low UV status of the Sun creates changes in the polar vortex, leading to high pressure systems (currently initiated over Hudson's Bay and Greenland) which move gradually eastward toward Scandinavia - these push the high-altitude jetstream southward (since 2007) - and this alters the 'storm tracks' mainly of the depressions that suck moisture and heat out of the oceans - in particular the two northern 'gyres' that store the excess heat form the equatorial regions - these gyres get depleted by the vortex (cyclonic circulation sucks energy upwards), and I will wager, are connected by magnetic funnels to the high pressure anti-cyclonic systems that funnel dry air back to the surface (with much of the heat radiating out to space);

* gradually the ocean heat stores are depleted in the 30-40 year timescale oscillations and then re-charged in the warm phase - but then there is the long 400/800 year cycle with the key solar minimums (50 years low magnetic) - which extends the extraction of heat from the oceans and takes them into the Little Ice Age conditions of 400 years ago - or the high phase of the Medieval Warm Period (800 years ago) - the LIA was the deepest of the oscillations in 10,000 years - and this pattern is obscured during the Ice Ages, where longer term 1500 year cycles are apparent;

Right now we have a southerly jetstream and a cooling Atlantic, a cool north Pacific, a possibly cooling Arctic, and a warming ENSO/SO (which I think will be short-lived and of low amplitude - we'll know by December) which may raise the global temperature despite the overall cooling - likewise, cycle 24 appears to be underway.

So - to affect the cooling/warming, you would need to redirect the jetstream as this determines the pattern. The jet gets feedback from the ocean status (air pressure) and has eddies and vortices of a chaotic nature, but the overall pattern is determined by the solar status (low magnetics, low UV, low solar wind). Ultimately, therefore, it depends on what the Sun does next!

Which is why the shamans are doing the Sun dance! I guess its a form of coherence creation.

If you were going to improve on Nature's plans.....you would have to decide whether cooling was a bad idea - it would affect crop yields, bring widespread starvation, but also perhaps reform of the agricultural system that currently shifts billions of peasants off their land into the favellas and leaves the world very vulnerable to climate change.
If I am wrong and carbon dioxide does have the power that computer simulation ascribes to it, then after the current cooling phase shifts to warming, there will be an unholy rise - and this would have a northerly jetstream, low pressure in the Arctic, massive Arctic melt-down and rising sealevels by 2100, with potential methane acceleration of warming too - so you would need to generate another cooling cycle - also via the solar magnetic field!

These solar cycles may be determined by planetary energies - i don't know how much chaos there is to be organised there!

This is how far my thoughts have gone. It explains why I place such emphasis in the book on 'adaptation' - and if things are going to get severe, then I would think the best focus for coherence is the human heart - toward love and cooperation via experience of the bliss-field, coupled to courage, persistence and hardwork. The would-be controllers of human destiny would have a different response via intensified military networks, banking systems, legal trading systems and policing the unrest.

Lets see what Paul LaViolette has to say - there may be some intervention on its way!!! blessings ... Peter

In the coming weeks: our FRACTAL FIELD TECHNOLOGIES- International science team- will be proposing specific Magnetic Grid- fractality solutions- on a global scale.

(exerpts from) - Breakthru FRACTAL FIELD- Technologies for ATMOSPHERE REPAIR:
A private intro for support and collaboration development- from Dan Winter- danwinter@goldenmean.info

-- Now that we know the cause of gravity... (the symmetry which causes all centripedal and self-organizing forces) www.goldenmean.info/goldenproof & www.goldenmean.info/budapest08/physicsoverview.html we can much better understand and repair the needs of stable atmosphere. (Read about how tetrahedrally placed dolmen / phase conjugate dielectrics - maintain gravity and atmosphere at www.goldenmean.info/babalon

We have long known that Gaia was a self organizing wave system. Now we newly know HOW wave systems BECOME self-organizing: they use PHASE CONJUGATE FRACTALITY. This means we can repair

1. the attractive force that holds atmosphere

2. the self organizing or implosion effect that makes atmosphere wave systems self-organizing and stable.

Further- the concept of PEACEMAKING- is in physics precisely the symmetry skill to cause WAVES to make peace- that is self-organize by implosive (fractal/phase conjugate) means. This has profound application for ALL aspects of stabilizing culture- and climate: (here is a short intro reading list)

International University for the SCIENCE of Peacemaking - Oneness in physics is precisely what allows fields to bond and become one ... ( Bill Witherspoon's work for example creating long wave magnetic trenches www.goldenmean.info/peaceuniversity

Learning Geomancy by Learning Rainmaking Bill Witherspoon - carves a shallow ditch many acres across in the shape of a ... end exerpt quote from Bill Witherspoon. Steps to Making Rain www.goldenmean.info/rain

Solution to Global Warming: ReArrange Land Magnetic Lines...to EMBED ...At its deepest level, Global Warming may destroy our genepool because of failure ..www.goldenmean.info/warming

-- We represent a brilliant international team of cutting edge scientists- more of whose names- will be revealed as needed ( a dozen or more of whom have international reputation). Generally- we represent a series of breakthru FRACTAL FIELD TECHNOLOGIES: (our technology group- private link has been removed here- if you have a support organization interested - please email: danwinter@goldenmean.info - meantime- you can see some examples of our FRACTAL FIELD- Bioactive Field - technologies at work: www.goldenmean.info/phaseconjugatewaterconfidential )

As you can see there- we are very probably the world leader in designing BIOACTIVE ELECTRIC FIELDS.

For example- Elizabeth Rauscher who has been working with us for years- is much in agreement that her magnetic cascade which eliminates pain ( and speeds healing) - is profoundly based on the phase conjugate magnetics - which I have now shown allows like poles of 2 magnets to attract. This implosive coupling is the mechanism of bioactive field technologies - which will revolutionize water treatment and agricultural water use. (link above).

One of the main purposes and outcomes of our team- is high level repair of our ecosystem.

This is based upon the fundamental understanding of what makes ecosystems self organize and become stable in the first place (as described above).

To help introduce the science world- in more depth - to the necessary (fractal field) science to restore atmosphere... to self-organization..

we have pioneered our relationship with UN eco scientist- PETER TAYLOR. We explain why fractality is the solution to eco-repair- and clearly NOT simplistic carbon models- with documentation at: www.goldenmean.info/fractalitynotcarbon

Simply put- any wave system (Earth) will generate HEAT- during compression (Solar Wind).
Fractality in that wave system - IS THE WAY HEAT DURING COMPRESSION IS ELIMINATED! ( ref- the /warming , /poleshift links above)

Concretely- we are now ready to test- with the help of your necessary sponsorship:

1. Long wave magnetic line alignment and fractality- for atmosphere maintenance. We use similar airplane and satellite mapping of Earth's long wave magnetic lines (see Rob Gourlay- also at / architecture link above) - to gradually restore Earth's grid to desperately needed implosive dodeca stellated fractality.

Techniques introduced at: www.goldenmean.info/rain & www.goldenmean.info/lightcity

With international geobiology consultancy (to verify sustainability): www.goldenmean.info/geobiology

2. Phase conjugate dielectric field- development - to bring water to deserts- AND life force to any space (especially on a planetary scale)

see- BLOOM THE DESERT at ( our technology group link removed here - but you can see an exerpt about our BLOOM THE DESERT PROJECT at www.goldenmean.info/georg & presentations at www.goldenmean.info/fractalwater

Fundamentally - the CONCEPT of how living growth force is brought to ANY space- is defined, measured and acheived by bringing FRACTALITY to that space:

Here is how it is measured in BIOLOGIC ARCHITECTURE www.goldenmean.info/architecture

See GDV measure of FRACTALITY IN AIR. Note the concept is NOT complicated- if charge can be distributed easily / fractality- in that space- THEN all biology THRIVES- if not {in steel and aluminum buildings for example} THEN ALL LIFE SUFFERS!

Charge distribution efficiency (fractality) is the KEY electrically common denominator to all systems that self organize LIFE.

-Our project for atmosphere repair has 3 parts: 1. Major geobiological magnetic line re-alignment to atmosphere restoring fractality, 2. Is Broadcast of Broad Spectral Inverse Pollutant Harmonics - at grid nodes, and 3. Involves- active communication with angelic intelligences- More on this - awaits our sponsors ...feel free to inquire: danwinter@goldenmean.info

- IN THE NEWS: - Atmospheric carbon is NOT the problem! (how science got the carbon problem WRONG)

Senator- STEVE FIELDING: "Well, look, yesterday I was seeing the scientists that were questioning the issue of what is driving global warming. Today, I'm meeting Obama's administration and also later on Senator Waxman's office and his team to hear the other side view. But yesterday, there was certainly a view that was questioning what was actually driving climate change and whether there was a direct link between CO2, or carbon emissions, and global warming. And they were putting forward some science and some evidence and some facts that were questioning whether CO2 is actually driving global warming."

Does climate change mean the world is cooling, and if so what should we do about it?

‘Do you believe the earth is warming? Think again, says Peter Taylor, a committed environmental analyst with the unusual gift of following scientific evidence ruthlessly wherever it may lead. Taylor has done groundbreaking work on issues ranging from ocean pollution and biodiversity through renewable energy. Now he turns his relentless searchlight on climate change. His work has the ring of passion and the clarity of intellectual honesty. We can be certain his conclusions are the product of a fearless, unbiased, and intelligent intellectual journey by a remarkable mind, all the marks of genuine science. Taylor challenges us to look beyond our biases to whatever conclusions the evidence may justify. Believers in global warming such as myself may not find comfort here, but they will without question find a clear challenge to examine all the evidence objectively. At the very least, Taylor raises issues and questions that must be addressed conclusively before global warming can be genuinely regarded as “truth”, inconvenient or otherwise. This book is a must-read for everyone on all sides of the climate change issue.’

W. Jackson Davis, professor emeritus, University of California, and author of the first draft of the Kyoto Protocol

Although the world’s climate has undergone many cyclical changes, the phrase ‘climate change’ has taken on a sinister meaning, implying catastrophe for humanity, ecology and the environment. We are told that we are responsible for this threat, and that we should act immediately to prevent it. But the apparent scientific consensus over the causes and effects of climate change is not what it appears. Chill is a critical survey of the subject by a committed environmentalist and scientist. Based on extensive research, it reveals a disturbing collusion of interests responsible for creating a distorted understanding of changes in global climate. Scientific institutions, basing their work on critically flawed computer simulations and models, have gained influence and funding. In return they have allowed themselves to be directed by the needs of politicians and lobbyists for simple answers, slogans and targets. The resulting policy - a 60% reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 - would have a huge, almost unimaginable, impact upon landscape, community and biodiversity.

On the basis on his studies of satellite data, cloud cover, ocean and solar cycles, Peter Taylor concludes that the main driver of recent global warming has been an unprecedented combination of natural events. His investigations indicate that the current threat facing humanity is a period of global cooling, comparable in severity to the Little Ice Age of 1400-1700 AD. The risks of such cooling are potentially greater than global warming and on a more immediate time scale, with the possibility of failing harvests leaving hundreds of millions vulnerable to famine. Drawing on his experience of energy policy and sustainability, Taylor suggests practical steps that should be taken now. He urges a shift away from mistaken policies that attempt to avert inevitable natural changes, to an adaptation to a climate that is likely overall to turn significantly cooler.

ETER TAYLOR is a science analyst and policy advisor with over 30 years experience as a consultant to environmental NGOs, government departments and agencies, intergovernmental bodies, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the UN. His range of expertise stretches from pollution and accident risk from nuclear operations, chemical pollution of the oceans and atmosphere, wildlife ecology and conservation, to renewable energy strategies and climate change. In addition to his advisory work, he has lectured widely in universities and institutes in Britain, Germany, Sweden, the USA and Japan, influencing the thinking and careers of several leading scientists. After graduating in Natural Sciences at Oxford University (and later returning to study Social Anthropology) he set up and directed the Oxford-based Political Ecology Research Group and pioneered the development of critical scientific review on environmental issues, both in the examination of official policy and in its use as a campaigning tool for legal reforms such as the precautionary principle (he was a leading advocate of this at UN conventions). He has sat on several government commissions and research advisory bodies. From 2000 to 2003 he was a member of the UK Government’s National Advisory Group for Community Renewable Energy.

In 2000 Taylor set up a new group, Ethos (www.ethos-uk.com), to develop educational programmes using leading-edge computer techniques for visualizing change in the rural landscape. After an extensive review of conservation practice for the British Association of Nature Conservationists, he published Beyond Conservation: a wildland strategy in the spring of 2005, and helped found and organize the Wildland Network for conservationists, foresters and land managers. He is a leading advocate of rewilding policies in nature conservation involving minimal human intervention and the reintroduction of exterminated large mammals, and sits on an advisory group for the management of National Trust and Forestry Commission land in the Lake District.

At some time he has been a member of the following professional institutes (reflecting his work and interests at different times): the Institute of Biology, the British Ecological Society, the Society for Radiological Protection, and the International Union of Radio-ecologists (at times on the editorial board of the Journal of Radioecology). During his work on marine pollution and hazardous industries he both critically assessed and utilized computer models of complex marine and atmospheric pathways. He is ideally qualified to review and synthesize climate science across many disciplines, taking a broad and independent view with an unparalleled insight into the workings of science and the evolution of policy behind the scenes of public debate and thus to make recommendations that respect the essentials of social as well as environmental sustainability.

Review by Geoff Ward, Journalist: Western Daily Press & Mysteriousplanet.net

This is the most important book in the world right now. I can't imagine one that could be more so.

Chill: A reassessment of global warming theory (Clairview, £14.99) by the ecological scientist Peter Taylor (pictured), will open your eyes to the truth about the Earth's climate, which is cooling, not warming.
G

lobal warming and climate change are inventions of science, not its discoveries. Climate change has become merely a slogan, ostensibly meaningful, but in true scientific terms, quite vacuous.
    Man-made global warming is a fabrication, an illusion brought about by flawed science. It has become a pervasive belief because it works very well for many powerful people. It is not a conspiracy, but more a mass delusion coupled to a massive collusion of interests.
    Meticulously argued in a pellucid and persuasive prose that carries the reader forward in rapt anticipation, Peter's book (not financed by any organisation) is a devastating critique of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and must be the first critical survey of the science and politics behind the issue to be made by a committed environmentalist. For this, he cannot be congratulated enough.
    The IPCC claims a consensus of the world's experts, but Peter proves this consensus is false and, in fact, never existed. There is only one basic piece of work to underpin the physics of carbon dioxide's ability to heat the atmosphere, and that is merely an assumption made by one member of the original small group of scientists that made global warming an international issue as long ago as 1988. Right from the start, that assumption was challenged as unsound, but dissent was marginalised. Politics had invaded science on a grand scale.
    Future projections of global warming are critically flawed because they rely on a virtual reality computer model of the global environment that fails to incorporate long and short-term natural cycles. Peter says he was motivated to review the science because "the proposed cure is likely to be worse than the disease", and was deeply shocked to find that the predictive models had such a flimsy base.
    The planet is now cooling, and so all the efforts to control carbon emissions are pointless and will make no difference to the situation. Instead, the billions being wasted in this direction should be spent on making ourselves resilient to the effects of global cooling which will cause food shortages just when food stocks are low and the population is increasing - another billion in the next 15 years. We could be facing a significant period of cooling comparable in severity to the "Little Ice Age" of 1400-1700.
    P

eter says: "We are not ready for global cooling. Our eye has been distracted by the virtual reality of computer simulation and an almost religious zeal to create a low-carbon economy. Food and health will be the real issues of the next decade, coupled with rising fuel prices and a crippled economy. This means that instead of ploughing vast sums into ineffective and very expensive barrages and turbine arrays, we need to be rebuilding our communities, refurbishing housing, establishing resilient local food supplies and making all our support systems robust to the future."
    Ample evidence for the operation of natural factors in the satellite record and in oceanographical data was available to the IPCC but it chose to downplay them. Late 20th century "global warming" was mainly due to a decrease in cloud cover and increased solar heating of the upper oceans, a phase which changed in 2001, since when there has been increased cloud - reflecting the sun's heat back into space - and no additional warming of the oceans. Already, summer ice in the Arctic is recovering.
    Another factor in the cooling is the current "quiet sun" and the absence of sunspots, which has confounded NASA predictions. A large body of peer-reviewed evidence links ocean temperatures with the sun's magnetic cycle.
    The general thrust of Peter's thesis is now shared by many scientists worldwide - thousands disagree with the IPCC view. One petition in the USA already has more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who object to the IPCC's approach. But can the runaway global warming bandwagon be stopped? Governments and top scientists will want to save face, which is at best inhumane and at worst a form of abject cowardice.
    Thankfully, at street level, polls show very few believe the scary climate story. In the US, Canada and the UK, most do not trust the science, the campaigners or their governments, believing it's all a scam (which it is). A small, if deluded cabal has used its position and all manner of collusion to foster what Peter calls "this colossal erroneous child of our times".

Quotes: ‘This is the most important book in the world right now.’

‘ Meticulously argued in a pellucid and persuasive prose that carries the reader forward in rapt anticipation, Peter's book (not financed by any organisation) is a devastating critique of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and must be the first critical survey of the science and politics behind the issue to be made by a committed environmentalist. For this, he cannot be congratulated enough.’ , Geoff Ward, Mysteriousplanet.net

ECOS
Journal of the British Association of Nature Conservationists August 2009

The latest climate indicators continue to run counter to the expectations of computer models. Are the believers in virtual reality climate modelling in denial of natural cycles and their power to shape climate?

There has been a significant acceleration in climate change over the past two years. The media have reported much of the change but with significant blind spots, and the world’s scientific community, apparently in consensus, are urging governments to act in unison at the upcoming December meeting dubbed ‘son of Kyoto’ in Copenhagen. But we are faced with what I regard as one of the most pervasive anomalies in the history of science and public policy – ‘global warming’, that apocalyptic beast at the door of the 21^st century, has expired from its effort to warm the planet. As the graph below illustrates:

Hadley Centre global means of sea-surface temperature (upper line) and surface air temperatures, with trends calculated from 2001.
The globe is cooling, not warming

These figures are born out by recent analyses of ocean heat content – the only way the planet stores incoming solar radiation, and that has been flat since 2002. Furthermore, the previous estimates of global warming’s long term heat store in the ocean surface waters have been revised downward by about 200%. When this data is integrated it will strongly affect model predictions relating to ‘in the pipeline’ impacts on future global temperatures.

This current pattern is obviously not ‘acceleration’ of global warming, though it is, of course, rapid climate change. Let’s look more closely at the recent data showing a turning of cycles rather than the projected ‘tipping’ points expected from linear projections.

Accumulated cyclone energy by year in the Atlantic (U. of Miami) Note the 60-year cycle.
When an objective index such as Accumulated Cyclone Energy is used, rather than simple numbers of hurricanes or costs of impacts, it is clear that nothing unusual is happening – there is a 60 year Atlantic cycle.

Fig.3 Satellite monitoring of sea-level rise.
In historic terms, there has been a trend of 2mm/year since from 1800-2000, accelerating to 3mm/year in the peak global warming years 1980-2000. The centennial rise is an expected thermal recovery from the Little Ice Age. The recent rise has tailed off in the last 5 years, as the cycles turn and not accelerated as often claimed in the media.

The record 2007 Arctic ice loss was not repeated in 2008, rather there was 9% more ice, and specialists will tell you the record ice-melt was due to an unusual peak in natural cyclic conditions related to warm-water incursion under the ice and extra cloud above it. Take away the sea-ice cover and the ocean releases heat to the atmosphere (temperatures go up, temporarily), but if that heat is not recharged, cooling results – which is what happened in 2008. The Arctic’s 70 year cycle has just turned, as has the northern Pacific’s 30 year cycle (the PDO), and the Atlantic will be next, leading to a drop in European maritime temperatures over the next decade.

I ought to get some brownie points for my own predictions – when the MetOffice were predicting warm dry summers in 2007 and 2008, I pointed to the shifting jetstream (as predicted from solar theories) and likely wash-outs; when they said last winter would be mild, I thought we could get the first Arctic downdraught. This summer is predicted to be hot, yet at the time of writing, May and June have been cool and afflicted by high pressure systems over Iceland blocking the warm westerlies, a signature of a shift in the Atlantic oscillation and also expected as the sun prolongs its magnetic low period. The MetOffice may get lucky as ‘blocking highs’ over Scandinavia could bring a heat wave of still air, but my expectation is more cooling eventually and a return to hard winters.

The computer specialists at NASA and Hadley do not talk of cycles. They rely upon a virtual Earth, which assumes a starting steady-state, a ‘forcing’ of this state (by, for example, GHGs) and an eventual return to equilibrium (with hundreds of simulations over many decades). However, small sub-groups of modellers, reporting in 2007-2008, have attempted to simulate ocean cycles and they predict global cooling over the next decade. Thus it is, that as major cycles begin to turn the models will have to be revised, and the future projections of ‘global warming’ due to greenhouse gases will be cut down to the lower estimates – and within natural fluctuations, but not, I think, before the Copenhagen meeting.

STOP PRESS: I was expecting some revision to the long range climate predictions generated for use by the UK Climate Impacts Projections and due out last November. They were postponed – I thought perhaps due to the need for revisions in the light of the above new science, which I pointed to in a visit to Hadley in September. The projections remain undimmed and were published in June. I attended an Oxford seminar and asked what had happened to the revisions. Ah – that’ll be the (unpublicised) mid-range projection group. They haven’t gone public yet, but will admit to expecting a decade of cooling, and assure us, normal warming will be resumed thereafter.

When I look more closely at claims for accelerating climate change (made for example by reports published by Greenpeace, FOE and WWF, for example) they are inevitably based upon ‘trends’ over the last 20-30 years and extrapolation toward ‘tipping points’. However, their science is not based on an understanding of cycles.

As can be seen from Figure 2, the Arctic was subject to a previous warm cycle between 1920-1940, but before the time of satellite surveys of sea-ice extent. I am now studying the north Atlantic, which has been in its own warm phase for the past 25 years, and I suspect is now turning. Already northern sea surface temperatures have been falling. Some specialists looking at Greenland’s glaciers and ice-cap, are reporting a return to normal freezing conditions. And if we look at Antarctica, sea-ice is at a 30-year record high, with only a small region of the Peninsula still showing warm. In New Zealand, the long retreat of glaciers (since well before carbon dioxide emissions rose dramatically), has been reversed. These are all reason enough to disagree with what is presented as a consensus of the world’s climatologists.

But these are not the reasons given in a new book Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme. He deals but little with the science (which is my only criticism – though it is a big one!). However, I think the book is important and I would hope that everyone involved in the debate reads it. It is a scholarly and deeply thoughtful sociological analysis of those forces operating upon climate science and the advocates of policy, of the sort that very seldom emerges from within the science establishment. Hulme was director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Studies at the University of East Anglia, home of one of the world’s top climate modelling teams. It is clear that he became ever more uncomfortable with the way the media, government and environmental groups treated the science, and perhaps also, with his colleagues’ assurances of certainty and belief in the models. Without getting lost in sociological jargon, he describes how climate change has become a social movement and an ideology, and how this constricts and constrains the science.

On these sociological perspectives, I am in complete agreement, but he provides no grounds for the critic who would say that the science institutions have themselves contributed to the disagreement by backing computer simulations and refusing to countenance those critiques that relate to cycles. Indeed, the word cycle does not appear once in Hulme’s entire treatment.

This matters far more that most environmentalists are prepared to consider. From the above considerations (now shared by some of the world’s top climatologists), it is quite possible that most of the warming was natural – and this makes a huge difference to policy (or at least it should do). The more the driving force is natural, the more any attempt to mitigate climate change by emission controls is likely to prove ineffective.

As I have argued in my new book, Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory, if natural forces can account for 80% of the warming, as I reckon the data shows, then halving emissions from industry and consumer can deal with only 8% of the driving force (restoring degraded forest ecosystems would ameliorate another 5%) . An 80% reduction in emissions would mitigate only 12%. Given that these policies have been made on the assumption of mitigating dangerous effects and given that they involve huge expenditure, industrial restructuring, global governance and taxation with as yet undisclosed intervention in the markets and imply widespread environmental impacts (turbines on land, tidal barrages, nuclear expansion, biofuels and GMOs, etc.), we need to be very certain of our estimates of causation.

The world now faces a huge problem. On the one hand, governments, industry and geo-scientists, are all gearing up for the assault on climate (paid for by new forms of taxation) – with ‘solutions’ ranging from fertilising the oceans to draw down carbon; sulphurating the upper atmosphere or giant mirrors in space to reflect sunlight; turning the Sahara into a huge photo-voltaic cell; or as I discuss below, the current front-runner – biochar. All of this effort is devoted to what looks like an ineffective policy goal.

The climate alarm has brought forth a plethora of ‘mad science’ schemes, all competing for pilot project funding. Biochar is not so mad. The recently formed International Biochar Initiative offers Biochar as the latest and most plausible solution – and Earthscan have published the findings of 50 scientific teams in a 400-page volume Biochar for Environmental Management. Basically, if plant material is burned in a low-oxygen incinerator, just as with traditional charcoal, black carbon is produced. If this is done on a large scale and the carbon buried in surface soils, then models show that it remains there and adds other benefits to the soil condition, such as nutrient retention, and the whole cycle can take out sufficient carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to make a difference. The Earthscan volume is long on details relating to yields and benefits, with 48 papers, but short on costs (2 papers) and availability of land – no detailed evaluation, with just one graph drawn from a study that showed state of the art carbon capture technologies could bring atmospheric CO2 levels down to 300ppm by 2040. That graph applied to all carbon capture technologies and did not evaluate costs.

As any ecologist and rural sociologist would expect, a global biochar project would be a massive undertaking with large-scale impacts on agricultural, forestry and other cultural practices. The proposal is that normal agricultural and forestry ‘wastes’ are used, with few special carbon sequestering crops in order to minimise the impact on food production. The feedstock is gathered, transported and pyrolised to produce a mix of gas for electricity generation and biochar for carbon sequestration and soil conditioning. To some extent, pilot plants that make use of biological wastes already exist for the production of electricity and heat and a little tweaking can produce charcoal as well as gas but with a loss of conversion efficiency.

This all looks very ecological but there are two crucial questions to answer relating to costs and whether there is enough material out there to make a difference (not that I believe halving emissions by 2040 will make much difference). On cost, the analysis presented shows that a plant processing wastes from 20,000 ha with a haulage distance averaging 14 km would on current values make a loss of $40/t of feedstock processed in fast pyrolysis where more electricity is generated (with less valuable biochar) and $70/t for the slower pyrolysis used primarily for biochar. The future economics depend upon competing electricity prices – in the US data provided, prices would have to rise by 45% for the fast pyrolysis to break even and by 400% for slow pyrolysis (where little electricity can be sold). This explains why even ordinary biomass burning for electricity has not penetrated the market. Biochar itself would have to be worth $250/t to make the slow process profitable (as sold to the agricultural sector). However, credits for GHG reduction under emission trading schemes can also make it profitable – the data show that at $70/t of CO2 equivalent the slow process becomes profitable. This is nearly 2x the currently expected $40/t European traded price.

One can quickly see that as fossil fuel and hence electricity prices rise and with a higher CO2 equivalent price in the cap-and-trade systems, biochar becomes profitable, but its economic feasibility will also rest upon the scale of the subsidy required. The question then remains - is there enough charcoal? The crop residue yields used in the analysis amount to 3.75t/ha, which seems rather high, especially as it allows for wastes left on the land to control erosion. This is the same order as can be expected from dedicated Short Rotation Coppice energy crops in a temperate climate, and thus might be optimistic. From this feedstock, the net carbon dioxide offset is calculated at 0.2t CO2/t of feedstock or 0.75tCO2/ha.

From this data we can do a few gross calculations that the biochar strategists do not. The total area of UK crop land runs to roughly 10 million hectares, which would then sequester 7.5 million tonnes/annum of CO2 out of roughly 500 million tonnes annual emissions – or 1.5%. The subsidy cost to make it profitable would be $70 x 7.5m, or $500 million per annum. Of course, the UK is a highly populated industrial country, and there are very large areas of sparsely populated productive cropland elsewhere – in the USA, Russia and eastern Europe, Argentina and Australia - approaching perhaps 2 billion hectares. If all of this were utilised to provide feedstock (with mineral-rich biochar returned), then about 7% of global carbon dioxide emissions could be offset at a cost (to the taxpayer) of $100 billion per annum. Forest wastes might add another 3% for a similar price. The cost might be lower given that savings could be made where labour and land costs are lower.

One can readily see why dozens of agronomists, foresters, biofuel technologists, bankers, brokers and carbon credit specialists would set up an international biochar group and favour an international carbon sequestration market. It is the same system that would drive an expanded wind turbine programme, biofuels for transport, tidal barrages and, of course, a rejuvenated carbon-friendly nuclear industry. All of these programmes are currently uneconomic in a free market, but become so in a regulated carbon economy based upon taxation (effectively a military model, which is perhaps why so many campaigners unconsciously adopt military metaphors). It is also, of course, a command economy, which is why there is so much opposition from right-wing middle-America.

If it is all put together, I can believe that sucking carbon out of the air and using renewable sources, and using energy more efficiently can technically reduce emissions by 80% by, say, 2050. But is it politically or economically feasible? Other energy and offset options will require even higher subsidy, but if costs were close to biochar then an eventual $1 trillion/annum would be the cost (or investment) for an 80% reduction.

On the latter question, we have a new book by Lord Stern that tells me I am wrong. A Blueprint for a Safer Planet follows on from his world-leading Stern Report on the economics of climate change commissioned by Tony Blair, which found, by cost-benefit analysis, that the costs of not mitigating climate change far outweighed the costs of mitigation at 1-2% of global GDP/annum to 2050. As readers of ECOS, we are perhaps a little less enamoured of cost-benefit analysis, having learned that economists have little compunction in choosing parameters that suit their intended conclusions. And where no monetary value can be attributed, some factors can simply be left out. It has always been easier to calculate the costs of action rather than the impact of non-action. In Stern’s case, the rule-book was rewritten and inaction, with all the complexity of future uncertainty and valuations of environmental and social costs, comes out more expensive than action.

The blueprint offers little more than the original report, which was widely slated by fellow economists –hitherto wedded to discounting future costs, which Stern eschewed, but feted by governments and environmentalists (who now, it would appear, embrace such cost-benefit projections, despite all past experience of how the figures get loaded to produce the politically desired economic outcome). One trillion dollars per year might well only amount to 1 or 2% of global GDP by 2050, but that does not mean it would be readily available. Governments have indeed found (or printed) that kind of money to bail out the banks and motor industries, but that has been a ‘one-off’ hit and we can see the difficulties that causes.

At present the global economy as measured by GDP has contracted by about 2% for one year. Carbon emissions are down as a result. Everyone talks of increasing efficiency and green investment as the future, but then governments throw huge sums into a process aimed at kick-starting the same machine that not only created the slump, but also the so-called ‘climate crisis’. My conclusion is that the modern growth-centred economy cannot cope with either a 2% contraction (or cost, or added investment) even for one year, let alone the next 50. I also think this slump (in confidence) was a direct result of the oil-price rise last year to $140 a barrel and that this is a harbinger of the future.

In a couple of pages of the only real examples in the book and from which we are meant to gain confidence in his projections, Stern tells us that Germany now has 23 GW of installed windpower, providing 7% of the country’s electricity. He tells us that this has been achieved by the use of feed-in tariffs which guarantee a price for the carbon-free electricity. Stern quotes the detail of €9.2 cents/kWh for onshore and 13 cents for offshore but not the standard tariff, so we don’t know the differential nor the scale or cost of the subsidy. He tells us that Germany intends to more than double its wind capacity to 55 GW by 2020 – and then quotes figures that expect a fourfold increase in TWh generated (delivered energy). This 400% leap in efficiency per GW installed comes from ‘repowering’ with bigger turbines, to give Germany 25% of electricity from wind. But the ‘power’ is already in the capacity figure, so the increase must come from some unexplained and hitherto unreported leap in efficiency (most reports are of less) This then translates to ‘Germany is a clear example of how government policy can support a transition towards close-to-zero-emissions electricity generation’.

Germany is the only example given. The leap from 7% to 25% is unproven, and the remaining 75% of transition unexplored. Further, we cannot work out how much it is costing the German taxpayer. This kind of reckoning apparently supports the 1% of GDP figure and the original Stern Report was full of such generalisations and great leaps forward. In the blueprint he now moves from 25% to near-zero (i.e. 100%) in one sentence without any supporting argument and no indication that all other renewables are 200-500% more ‘costly’ than wind.

Had he turned to Denmark or Spain for his examples, he would have been more than unsupported. Unable to redefine their economies by exporting industrial capital to China, both invested heavily in renewable energy supplies – and became world leaders. Spain has experienced rising carbon dioxide emissions - by 30% in ten years. Danish consumers pay 200% over electricity UK charges, all of that in a special tax, and though government sources laud emission reductions, these are complicated by export and import of electricity to Norway and Germany – Earthscan’s Atlas of Climate Change recorded 5% rising emissions to 2004.

This lack of intellectual rigour is becoming scary. The Stern report is little more than a statement of faith that technology and the markets, aided with a heavy dose of stealth taxation, can deliver mankind from the evil of climate chaos. Yet it is totally accepted as a guiding plan for government and EU targets. There is zero analysis of the environmental impact of the mitigation technologies themselves (so they cannot have been costed). How much is the tranquillity of Romney Marsh worth, or Lofoten’s sea-eagles, or the Hebridean wildness? What is the cost of biofuels annihilating the orang-utan, the Tana River Wilderness or the Dayak people?

And there is absolutely no time-related analysis of the actual impact on climate from the reduced emissions. Yet this level of thinking is going to be the basis for a new climate treaty in December 2009! In any analysis of climate change, it should be admitted that dangerous vulnerability is here now. Whether warming or cooling, adaptation is necessary to save real lives in the real decades immediately ahead. Stern points to a figure of $279 million that is currently being spent on adaptation globally - not in special funds, but in an identifiable portion of the $100 billion of Overseas Development Aid. This is one third of one-percent of an ODA budget that goes to accelerating growth and energy demand in the standard model economy – as does, of course, the whole of the international capital investment flow – which dwarfs ODA, and upon which the phenomenon that is ‘China Inc’ was created.

In my book I take the environmental movement to task for accepting this low level of analysis. The impacts of mitigation technologies upon the social, cultural and wild environment will be immense but are not assessed by them, nor by Stern. The ‘costs’ of mitigation, despite what Stern believes, will pre-empt many other environmental strategies. Yet, none of the environmental groups has taken a critical look at the science of climate change itself - the complex modelling, the relation of atmospheric carbon dioxide to temperature, the time-lags, the role of natural cycles, and the ultimate question of whether emission controls can deliver any climatic effects before the end of the century.

I am open to being convinced that at some future date, humanity could be endangered by carbon dioxide induced runaway global warming – but the IPCC models do not convince me, and Stern and all the others simply build on that UN assessment without question. Yet, these are the same environmentally concerned UN minds that brought us ‘dilute and disperse’ for toxic wastes and now see nuclear power and GMOs as salvation. Environmentalists now seem to accept without question (or analysis) the authority structures that will have to be put in place to make a low-carbon economy work. As Mike Hulme points out, that is because it is not in their interests to question. On the other side of the fence, an increasing number of conservative or right-wing voters, with their antipathy to taxation, increased regulatory control and interference in free markets, will oppose this new carbon economy and also, of course, question and disagree with the IPCC assessment. Meanwhile, in the heat of growing disagreement nobody pays much attention to adapting to inevitable changes, whatever the cause.

If the environmental campaign groups with whom I have had a long history of collaboration are to separate themselves from the backlash that is building, then I would suggest they slowly opt out of the carbon emissions, low carbon economy, and renewable energy arguments, and focus upon actually protecting the environment and the vulnerable communities that live there by refocusing on creating resilience.

WHY WE DISAGREE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, Mike Hulme, Cambridge University Press 2009, 392 pages, paperback £15.99 ISBN 9780521727327 (Hardback £45 ISBN 9780521898690)

BIOCHAR for ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, Ed. Joannes Lehmann and Stephen Joseph, Earthscan 2009, 416 pages, hardback, £49.95 ISBN 9781844076581

CHILL: a reassessment of global warming theory, Peter Taylor, Clairview 2009, 404 pages, paperback £14.99, ISBN 9781905570195

A BLUEPRINT FOR A SAFER PLANET, Nicholas Stern, Bodley Head 2009, 246 pages, hardback £16.99, ISBN 978184792037

SO- the spiritual literature suggesting a (Solar) age of bliss/rapture - is probably a long wave in conjugate implosive (mind generating) negentropy.

Exactly as we proved is the case for kundalini / bliss...
AND the nature of the Earth's Schumann Resonance cascade:
(implosive conjugate pump wave- which can be fixed!)

==

Dan Winter's ( new book: fractalfield.com/fractalspacetime ) showed the SCHUMANN RESONANCE can be tweaked

to BE the perfect (negentropic) phase conjugate collapse! - Meaning we can FIX THE CHAOS!

Quotes: ‘This is the most important book in the world right now.’

SO- the spiritual literature suggesting a (Solar) age of bliss/rapture - is probably a long wave in conjugate implosive (mind generating) negentropy.

Exactly as we proved is the case for kundalini / bliss... AND the nature of the Earth's Schumann Resonance cascade: (implosive conjugate pump wave- which can be fixed!)

==

Dan Winter's ( new book: fractalfield.com/fractalspacetime ) showed the SCHUMANN RESONANCE can be tweaked

to BE the perfect (negentropic) phase conjugate collapse! - Meaning we can FIX THE CHAOS!

Quotes: ‘This is the most important book in the world right now.’

Exactly as we proved is the case for kundalini / bliss...
AND the nature of the Earth's Schumann Resonance cascade:
(implosive conjugate pump wave- which can be fixed!)